Hi Karl,

I think that we should consider only OpenJDK edition of JDK 11 without
considering the Oracle version.

Probably we could be lucky with OpenJDK, anyway we have to go in deep also
with OpenJDK investing more time on this.

Hope to find some time soon to understand more details for this porting
task to do :-P

PJ

Il Sab 12 Dic 2020, 13:01 Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Hi,
>
> Whereas I was under the impression that one of our committers had addressed
> the JDK 11 problem in ManifoldCF, upon detailed inspection and trial I have
> determined that this is in fact quite false.  The reason is that the
> relatively new csws connector used a ton of J2EE classes that are no longer
> bundled with JDK 11.
>
> I've managed to get this to build now, while adding a number of these
> classes to the appropriate classpaths in connector-build.xml, but here's
> the problem: unless somebody actually tries this connector, and uses it
> under JDK 11 in a Livelink environment, I have no idea what classes may be
> missing at runtime.  So I am hoping we have a committer somewhere who might
> be able to work with me on this experiment.
>
> There's more news, and it isn't good: Oracle has deprecated some ubiquitous
> methods and some techniques that many open-source projects we depend on
> use.  For example, new Long(long) is going away.  I have no idea why they
> did this but they must know it will effectively deprecate 100% of the Java
> codebase that is lightly maintained, and force massive rework of pretty
> near all opensource code.  That MUST be intentional on Oracle's part, and
> to me it represents the writing on the wall concerning the lifetime of
> legacy ManifoldCF connectors.  It will likely not be possible to support
> our existing connector family when this happens.
>
> Meanwhile, we still need to go through the JDK 11 deprecations in our own
> codebase and fix those, as well as verify proper function of all connectors
> on JDK 11.  I'll be tackling that project myself in my voluminous spare
> time.
>
> Karl
>

Reply via email to