To compile classes for a mvjar I understand that we'll need only the most recent version (J9+) and with the right options (perhaps in several calls) it will do the job. For tests (multi modules or several executions in one module) if you really want to test your code in a real situation you'll need to have locally all the targeted JRE and use the JDK toolchain to use them. WDYT ?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote: > I see comparison with an EAR, but instead of bundling artifacts, you could > unpack certain dependencies to the META-INF/java/x folder. > What I like about this solution that it is very clear which compiler > version is used. Even if we are able to put all sources into 1 > MavenProject, it is still best to compile java5 source with JDK5, java6 > sources with JDK6, etc. > And what about unit testing? Test them with the whole range of JDKs? > Downside might be that with the multimodule solution you'll end up with > artifacts which should(?) never be installed/deployed, but should only be > bundled in the mvjar. > > Do we expect this to be THE new way of development or are these still rare > cases? If it is considered rare, then I don't mind offering a multimodule > solution, where every module does its less complex job very good. > > Robert > > Op Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:39:56 +0200 schreef Paul Benedict < > pbened...@apache.org>: > > > In addition, even if IDEs were to support the MVJAR spec, that doesn't >> answer how Maven should natively answer the spec. Relying on IDE support >> isn't a good total answer, but it is a good complimentary answer. Maven >> just has to answer it with configuration and command line tooling too. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Carlos Sanchez <car...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> My 0.02 >>> >>> The current approach to use multiple modules, poms,... is a pita and >>> mvjar would fix that, while bringing new interesting problems such as >>> testing the possible combinations. But that is ok. >>> >>> Lack of IDE support shouldn't stop us, if it is useful for maven users >>> that may push the IDEs >>> >>> If the Maven user wants to use mvjar by putting sources in >>> src/main/java8 src/main/java9 or whatever convention we decide, then >>> the compiler, jar,... plugins should transparently handle all the >>> necessary compilations and packaging without extra pom configuration. >>> If they decide to stick with multimodule, they can still do that. >>> >>> So if we are ok with the plugins recognizing these mvjar projects then >>> it is left for someone to implement some jira issues in the best way >>> possible while retaining backwards compatibility. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > I don't see this as "forcing" to create modules. This is purely a >>> packaging >>> > issue, not a programming issue. Rather than providing distinct jars per >>> the >>> > Java version you're targeting (which people have done for years when >>> > needed), you're just binding things up at the end. Forget this is about >>> the >>> > MVJAR initiative because this is just how you would solve this minus >>> the >>> > special packaging. >>> > >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Paul >>> > >>> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Stephen Connolly < >>> > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Actually this is worse. This would be Maven forcing us to create >>> modules >>> >> because IDEs do not support different JDK levels for source code paths >>> in >>> >> the one module >>> >> >>> >> On 14 April 2015 at 09:32, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY < >>> herve.bout...@free.fr >>> > >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Le lundi 13 avril 2015 12:19:57 Paul Benedict a écrit : >>> >> > > > This is the example project structure I had in mind: >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > mvjar-example/ >>> >> > > > minjava/ >>> >> > > > src/main/java >>> >> > > > src/test/java >>> >> > > > java7/ >>> >> > > > src/main/java >>> >> > > > src/test/java >>> >> > > > java8/ >>> >> > > > src/main/java >>> >> > > > src/test/java >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > The "minjava" and "java7" and "java8" are not special names >>> (just >>> >> names >>> >> > > to >>> >> > > > denote what kind of Java source is inside). As Herve noted, >>> "minjava" >>> >> > > would >>> >> > > > contain the source minimum Java version; "java7" would contain >>> the >>> >> java >>> >> > > > 7-specific sources, and "java8" would contain the java >>> 8-specific >>> >> > > sources. >>> >> > > like Gary answered, I think that it'll be better if we stick with >>> >> java#, >>> >> > > or j# >>> >> > > >>> >> > > And in this example, we'll require another module for the mvjar, >>> that >>> >> > will >>> >> > > combine result fo every other module >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > I really hate when maven enforces us to create modules for its own >>> >> > technical reasons. (And I know I'm not the only one) >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > I don't see any added difficulty with regard to testing. If you >>> >> already >>> >> > > > have code that tests a specific Java X version, just extract >>> that >>> >> into >>> >> > > its >>> >> > > > own test case file and place it in the appropriate project. At >>> most >>> >> all >>> >> > > > you're doing is minor refactoring. >>> >> > > after thinking at it, true >>> >> > > this module layout is definitely really clear, that's a big >>> advantage! >>> >> > > one thing that it makes really clear is javadoc, too, since >>> javadoc >>> in >>> >> a >>> >> > > mv- >>> >> > > module is a challenge :) >>> >> > > >>> >> > > we should try it with plexus-utils, in another branch >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > This will create three JARs of course (or at least today). I >>> don't >>> >> see >>> >> > > that >>> >> > > > as a big deal since authors may decide to distribute this way >>> where >>> >> > MVJAR >>> >> > > > isn't supported (like pre-Java 9 JVMs). >>> >> > > IMHO, not really, since the minimum version module will contain >>> >> > absolutely >>> >> > > every classes, but the other modules will contain only a few >>> classes = >>> >> > the >>> >> > > few >>> >> > > code that is rewritten to take advantage of newer JDK >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Compatibility with old jdks that do not support mvjar is built >>> into >>> >> mvjar >>> >> > > JEP: >>> >> > > a JVM that does not support mvjar extension will see minimum >>> version >>> >> > > modules >>> >> > > (and useless content in /META-INF/versions/) >>> >> > > >>> >> > > notice that every module will ave its own GAV coordinates: the >>> last >>> >> mvjar >>> >> > > module will have the end-user coordinates, where every >>> >> > JDK-version-specific >>> >> > > module will have an artifactId = artifactId-java# (that's a >>> generic >>> >> > > convention >>> >> > > we should try to push forward) >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > However, if we can bind up all the >>> >> > > > jars into one in a post-processing phrase, you can then meet the >>> >> MVJAR >>> >> > > > specification. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > PS: I really don't know if an "mvjar" type is necessary. >>> Honestly, I >>> >> > hope >>> >> > > > it's not. I thought it was needed in the beginning, but am not >>> sure >>> >> > > > anymore. Opinions appreciated. >>> >> > > I don't know if the merging will require a dedicated packaging: >>> we'll >>> >> see >>> >> > > later >>> >> > > >>> >> > > now it's time to test on plexus-utils: givent this idea doesn't >>> involve >>> >> > > much >>> >> > > new things in maven, I'm pretty sure we can make it full >>> functional! >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I'll try to do it tonight if nobody beats me at it >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Regards, >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Hervé >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Cheers, >>> >> > > > Paul >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:28 AM, nicolas de loof < >>> >> > > nicolas.del...@gmail.com> >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > wrote: >>> >> > > > > I expect we could run the unit test suite on JDK 6 / 7 / 8 in >>> >> > parallel >>> >> > > > > with >>> >> > > > > 7/8 specific code being used for the JDK that do support them, >>> so I >>> >> > > wonder >>> >> > > > > such a multi-module setup would work in this scenario, or >>> would >>> >> need >>> >> > > yet >>> >> > > > > another maven module for tests :'( >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > 2015-04-12 23:33 GMT+02:00 Hervé BOUTEMY < >>> herve.bout...@free.fr >>> >: >>> >> > > > > > Le samedi 11 avril 2015 21:42:50 Paul Benedict a écrit : >>> >> > > > > > > I've been giving this subject lots of thought in some of >>> spare >>> >> > > time. >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > IMO, >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > the most straightforward way of meeting the requirement of >>> the >>> >> > > MVJAR >>> >> > > > > > > is >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > to >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > break up one's JAR project into separate modules. One >>> module >>> >> > would >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > contain >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > the version independent code, and then other modules would >>> be >>> >> per >>> >> > > Java >>> >> > > > > > > version. >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > more precisely: the first module would contain the source >>> for >>> >> > minimum >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > Java >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > version: sometimes, it will contain code that won't run with >>> >> later >>> >> > > JRE >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > This kind of slicing is necessary because you do need >>> different >>> >> > > > > > > kinds of compiler directives (like -source), different >>> JREs >>> to >>> >> > run >>> >> > > > > > > unit >>> >> > > > > > > tests differently, and most importantly, the different >>> JREs >>> to >>> >> > > allow >>> >> > > > > > > debugging according to the Java version you want to test. >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > The other piece that doesn't yet exist is a way to bundle >>> the >>> >> > > modules >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > into >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > one jar. Perhaps this can be accomplished by introducing a >>> new >>> >> > > "mvjar" >>> >> > > > > > > Maven type. >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > I didn't imagine this scenario: no Maven plugins updates nor >>> IDE, >>> >> > > "just" >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > a >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > new >>> >> > > > > > feature to merge multiple modules into on MV jar >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > interesting idea, in fact: this would seriously reduce the >>> impact >>> >> > on >>> >> > > > > > tooling, >>> >> > > > > > even if the result is less compact, ie creates a lot of >>> Maven >>> >> > modules >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > and I am wondering what unit tests will look like for >>> additional >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > versions: >>> >> > > > > > the >>> >> > > > > > good thing is that they can be tweaked easily. Then bad >>> thing >>> is >>> >> > > that we >>> >> > > > > > may >>> >> > > > > > end up in copy/pasting them >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > Regards, >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > Hervé >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > Paul >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > Cheers, >>> >> > > > > > > Paul >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY < >>> >> > > herve.bout...@free.fr> >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > wrote: >>> >> > > > > > > > Le samedi 11 avril 2015 15:35:02 Kristian Rosenvold a >>> écrit : >>> >> > > > > > > > > Technically we support "main" scoped sources in java6 >>> and >>> >> > > "test" >>> >> > > > > > > > > scoped sources in java7 today, but the feature is >>> largely >>> >> > > unusable >>> >> > > > > > > > > since IDE support is totally missing. Even IntelliJ >>> does >>> >> not >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > support >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > it (https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-85478 >>> and >>> >> > other >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > issues) >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > :( >>> >> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > There might be some hope of gaining some kind of >>> traction >>> >> to >>> >> > > both >>> >> > > > > > > > > source and main-level support of multi-language-level >>> >> > modules. >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > Maybe >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > something like (src/main/java and src/test/java = >>> "default >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > language" >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > level) while src/[main|test]/java-8 would be a >>> specific >>> >> > > language >>> >> > > > > > > > > level. This sounds infinitely cool, >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > yes, that's what I did in plexus-utils jdep-238 branch >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > https://github.com/codehaus-plexus/plexus-utils/tree/jep- >>> 238/src/main >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > but also like a great can of worms >>> >> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > :) >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > yes, I fear it's not so easy for IDEs... >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > I assume minimum compiler requirement would be java-8 >>> for a >>> >> > > > > > > > > project >>> >> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > with src/main/java-8 ? >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > yes, I think that's what makes such support hard at the >>> >> moment: >>> >> > > > > require >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > the >>> >> > > > > > > > highest JDK, and signature for every lower JDK to avoid >>> newer >>> >> > > APIs >>> >> > > > > > > > unless JDK 9 can safely compile for any older target, >>> >> checking >>> >> > > the >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > API >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > (without having to run Animal Sniffer after that) >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > Regards, >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > Hervé >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > K >>> >> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > 2015-04-11 15:11 GMT+02:00 Hervé BOUTEMY < >>> >> > > herve.bout...@free.fr>: >>> >> > > > > > > > > > Le samedi 11 avril 2015 10:54:34 Kristian Rosenvold >>> a >>> >> > écrit : >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> IDE support for multiple source trees seems quite >>> far >>> >> off >>> >> > ? >>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > IDE support for current situation, where we mix >>> multiple >>> >> > Java >>> >> > > > > > > > > > API >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > versions >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > in one single source tree, is even more far off! >>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > With separate source trees, IDE support starts like >>> we >>> >> are >>> >> > at >>> >> > > > > > > > > > the >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > moment = >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > no IDE support >>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > but IDEs that want to do something about it have a >>> >> chance: >>> >> > > > > > > > > > that's >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > the >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > big >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > difference IMHO >>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > Regards, >>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > Hervé >>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> Kristian >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> 2015-04-11 8:51 GMT+02:00 Hervé BOUTEMY < >>> >> > > herve.bout...@free.fr >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Yesterday at DevoxxFR, Carlos Sanchez, Arnaud >>> >> Héritier, >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > Nicolas >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > de >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > Loof >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > and me met Brian Goetz and discussed about the >>> >> objective >>> >> > > of >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > JEP >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > 238 >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > and >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > what we could get from such a feature. >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Having a face to face explanation in front of a >>> white >>> >> > > board >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > gave >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > interesting ideas: then, *as library >>> maintainer*, I >>> >> > tried >>> >> > > to >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > modifiy >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > plexus-utils code to use MVJAR for Java 7 >>> enhancement >>> >> > that >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > are >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > currently >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > triggerred through reflection >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Here is the result [1]: >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > I extracted 2 little xxxMv classes containing >>> only >>> the >>> >> > few >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > methods >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > that >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > had to be enhanced when runing on Java 7, >>> replacing >>> >> the >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > if (Java7Detector.isJava7()) { >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > // java 7 >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > } else { >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > // Java 5 >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > } >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > stanza with the default Java 5 code in the main >>> >> > > src/main/java >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > source >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > tree >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > and Java 7 reimplementation in src/main/java-7 >>> source >>> >> > tree >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > and I did cleanup: removed Java7Detector and >>> moved >>> >> > > NioFiles >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > to >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > this >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > java-7 >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > specific source tree >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > the result is a main src/main/java source tree >>> that >>> >> can >>> >> > be >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > compiled >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > with >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > JDK 5 and a src/main/java-7 source tree that is >>> >> minimal >>> >> > > to be >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > compiled >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > with JDK 7 >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > I still didn't try to update pom.xml to see what >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > maven-compiler-plugin >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > and >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > maven-jar-plugin configurations could look like. >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > and I don't know if javac will be enhanced to do >>> the 2 >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > compilations >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > in >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > 1 >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > command like "javac -target 1.5 src/main/java >>> -target >>> >> > 1.7 >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > src/main/java-7" >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > or if it'l have to launch 2 javac one after the >>> other >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > I didn't look at maven-jar-plugin to see if it >>> uses >>> >> > "jar" >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > command >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > that >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > will be enhanced to mix multiple target/classes >>> or >>> if >>> >> it >>> >> > > uses >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > JarFile >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > class then will need to code the mix >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > and I don't know if javac will have tru >>> crossplatform >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > compilation >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > option, >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > to avoid using 2 JDKs (ie JDK 5 for compiling >>> java >>> 5 >>> >> > code >>> >> > > and >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > being >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > sure >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > there is no Java 7 API reference, and JDK 7 for >>> the >>> >> > java 7 >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > part) >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > I see there will be impact on tooling, and if >>> javac >>> >> > does a >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > part >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > of >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > the >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > job, >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > this will be a lot easier to implement at Maven >>> level >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > But at the moment, my objective was not from >>> Maven >>> >> point >>> >> > > of >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > view >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > but >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > library developper point of view: show a real >>> world >>> >> case >>> >> > > of >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > how >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > an >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > existing library could be refactored to use the >>> >> feature, >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > expecting >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > that >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > the new source code would be easier to maintain >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > WDYT? >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Regards, >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Hervé >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > [1] >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> https://github.com/codehaus-plexus/plexus-utils/tree/jep- >>> 238/src/main/j >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > av >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > a-7/org/codehaus/plexus/util> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > Le jeudi 19 mars 2015 23:38:32 Robert Scholte a >>> écrit >>> >> : >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Hi, >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> we've been asked to give our opinion on the JEP >>> 238: >>> >> > > > > > Multi-Version >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > JAR >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Files >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Here's a quote from Rory O'Donnels e-mail: >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> --- >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> It's goal is to extend the JAR file format to >>> allow >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > multiple, >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> JDK >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> release-specific versions of class >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> files to coexist in a single file. An >>> additional >>> >> goal >>> >> > > is >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> to >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > backport >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> the >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> run-time changes to >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> JDK 8u60, thereby enabling JDK 8 to consume >>> >> > > multi-version >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > JARs. >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > For >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> a >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> detailed discussion, >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> please see the corresponding thread on the >>> >> > > core-libs-dev >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > mailing >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> list. >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> [1] >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Please keep in mind that a JEP in the >>> Candidate >>> >> state >>> >> > > is >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > merely >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > an >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> idea >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> worthy of consideration >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> by JDK Release Projects and related efforts; >>> there >>> >> is >>> >> > > no >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > commitment >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> that >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> it will be delivered in >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> any particular release. >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Comments, questions, and suggestions are >>> welcome on >>> >> > the >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > corelibs-dev >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> mailing list. (If you >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> haven’t already subscribed to that list then >>> please >>> >> > do >>> >> > > so >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > first, >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> otherwise your message will be >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> discarded as spam.) >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> [0] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/238 >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> [1] >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-February/031 >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> 461 >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> .ht ml >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> --- >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> IIUC the original request was to have different >>> >> version >>> >> > > of >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > the >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> same >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> class >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> within the same artifact. On the mailinglist I >>> >> noticed >>> >> > a >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> more >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> interesting >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> idea: you need a mechanism to map Classes, >>> Methods or >>> >> > > Fields >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > from >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > one >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> version to the other. >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> From a Maven perspective I don't see that much >>> >> issues >>> >> > > with >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > the >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> original >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> idea. You should already be able to do it right >>> now >>> >> > with >>> >> > > a >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > lot >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > of >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> execution-blocks. >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> However, I don't see how users would maintain >>> >> different >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > version of >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > the >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> same class (within an IDE). >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> To me this all looks quite complex for rare >>> cases. >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> If you really want multiple JDK versions of the >>> same >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > artifact, >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > I >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > would >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> probably split them into classified artifacts. >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Any other comments? >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> thanks, >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Robert >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------- >>> >> > > > > > > > - >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >> > dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >> > > dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------- >>> >> > > > > > > > - >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >> > dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >> > > dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> --------- >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >> > dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> --------- >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >> dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >>> dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------- >>> >> > > > > > > > - >>> >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache. >>> org >>> >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >>> dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> --------- >>> >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > ----- >>> >> > Arnaud Héritier >>> >> > http://aheritier.net >>> >> > Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com >>> >> > Twitter/Skype : aheritier >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > -- ----- Arnaud Héritier http://aheritier.net Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com Twitter/Skype : aheritier
