Java 8 is fine by me, no matter what you label the next version, might as well label is "4".
Gary On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Stephen Connolly < [email protected]> wrote: > Picking up from > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMyjogmqRweYbxLuULLB9ve2P6MPcQuH%2BPkxcNn-oN4GPg%40mail.gmail.com%3E > (and my follow up to that but archive.apache.org is being a tad slow) > > Here is our policy: > > The development line of Maven core should require a minimum JRE version > > that is no older than 18 months after the end of Oracle's public updates > > for that JRE version at the time that the first version of the > development > > line was released, but may require a higher minimum JRE version if other > > requirements dictate a higher JRE version > > > (Source: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy) > > OK, so it's a draft policy... but we've all been silent on the draft, so > lazy consensus! > > Now in http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html they > state: > > after April 2015, Oracle will not post further updates of Java SE 7 to its > > public download sites > > > So per our (draft) version number policy, we can keep Java 7 as the > baseline :-( or we can choose to upgrade code to Java 8 (because we want to > use lambdas... there's a requirement) > > > So assuming we bump the master branch of Maven core to 3.4.0, what Java > version do we want to use as the baseline? > > There are thankfully only two options: > > Java 7 > + Not actually changing things > + May make it easier to drive adoption > - Still can't use newer language features in core > - Java 7 is EOL and it may get harder for developers to source JDKs to > test and develop against > > Java 8 > + We're not as old hat any more > + We can use lambdas > + We can use Nashorn (may make integrating with Node easier... certainly > could make integrating with JavaScript tooling easier) > + EOL for Java 8 is at least Sep 2017 (and may be later) > - May be harder to drive adoption in shops that have issues upgrading > Java (but toolchains and they likely wouldn't upgrade to 3.4.x anyway > unless there are features dragging their change controlled heels over the > line) > > So... > > Let's have a heated debate! > > -Stephen > > P.S. > > I'm waiting for Chris to chime in about how IBM is still supporting Java > 1.3 or something like that ;-) > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
