Il lun 14 ago 2017, 11:46 Tibor Digana <tibor.dig...@googlemail.com> ha
scritto:
> Hello Enrico,
>
> I fixed SUREFIRE-1403 and now Surefire works with Java 9.
> I need an approval for the Jira SUREFIRE-1403 for you and Robert. Thx in
> advance.
>
I will check as soon as I wil be back from vacation. Thank you very much.
For me it is very important
>
> I have added integration tests for Failsafe plugin, added documentation "
> java9.md" and removed JAXB which is located in module *javax.xml.binding*.
>
> *Here is a clarification on why I was unhappy with Java status and why
> Surefire project could not run with Java 9 and how it was fixed:*
>
> Because of I used *javax.xml.binding*, plugin Failsafe did not run in
> Java9.
> Reason is that module *javax.xml.binding* is however in Java API but not
> propagated on classpath when running Maven process (different situation in
> forked JVM in Surefire which is here fixed by SUREFIRE-1403).
> This is strange and will be strange for most people, for instance in our
> *Java
> EE project using REST* the WildFly server has to use *"--add-modules
> ALL-SYSTEM"* in *jboss.sh* to make our applications working again.
> As a solution in Surefire project I removed JAXB which was simple XML in my
> case but not simple in general.
>
I will have to do it for several projects, or at leastleast to add
java.se.ee, in fact many programs need JDBCTO and it is excluded by
default, that is weird to me
>
> Someone may say that "do not use Java 9 if you do not use Jigsaw
> modularity".
> But there are reasons where you will use it.
> For instance new API in Java or Java EE 9 in the future.
>
The main reason for migration is to keep up to date, java8 will soon reach
EOL.
Java9 comes with many improvements that just upgrading will speed up most
applications, just think about nee compat strings. New API are great and
were expected from long time ago, like the new Process API....
> I do not think that using *"--add-modules ALL-SYSTEM"* is good principle.
>
Yep, new applications will be more fine tuned, the problem here is only for
the migration
As a workaround to this in Maven would be to develop *smart
> maven-compiler-plugin* which automatically generates *module-info.class*
> upon import sections in Java classes and Maven dependencies.
> Not easy I guess.
>
I think this will be not feasible in general and very dangerous and maybe I
hope maven will never do such things
Cheers
Enrico
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Il dom 13 ago 2017, 17:31 Tibor Digana <tibor.dig...@googlemail.com> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > I found an issue. JDK printed this on std/out:
> > > WARNING: Using incubator modules: jdk.incubator.httpclient
> > >
> > > It hapens after my test:
> > >
> > > import org.junit.Test;
> > >
> > > public class J9Test
> > > {
> > > @Test
> > > public void testMiscellaneousAPI() throws java.sql.SQLException
> > > {
> > > System.out.println( "loaded class " +
> > > java.sql.SQLException.class.getName() );
> > > System.out.println( "loaded class " +
> > > javax.xml.ws.Holder.class.getName() );
> > > System.out.println( "loaded class " +
> > > javax.xml.bind.JAXBException.class.getName() );
> > > System.out.println( "loaded class " +
> > > org.omg.CORBA.BAD_INV_ORDER.class.getName() );
> > > System.out.println( "loaded class " +
> > > javax.xml.xpath.XPath.class.getName() );
> > > System.out.println( "java.specification.version=" +
> > > System.getProperty( "java.specification.version" ) );
> > > }
> > >
> > > @Test
> > > public void test_corba_mod() throws org.omg.CORBA.BAD_INV_ORDER
> > > {
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Tibor Digana <
> > tibor.dig...@googlemail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > But why to add it? It's a hack. I do not use module-info.java and so
> > > there
> > > > is no reason to break the backwards compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > This is no more about Maven. It is about entire Java world.
> > > > If we in Maven do it then everybody has to.
> > > > And I am sure that the voices says that Kotlin is better and Scala is
> > > > better would make sense. Why to help these attempts to happen? No
> > reason!
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Gary Gregory <
> garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Is there a Maven way to add ALL-SYSTEM to everything? Using plugin
> > > >> specific
> > > >> tags like below is going to be painful.
> > > >>
> > > >> Gary
> > > >>
> > > >> On Aug 13, 2017 07:30, "Tibor Digana" <tibordig...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi @Enrico,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am very unhappy with Java 9 status and very afraid.
> > >
> >
> > Tibor, thank you very much for your time and your effort.
> > I think that we should have chimed in long time before the approval of
> > those decisions on the jre. Now the game is over, we can only decide how
> > maven users will deal with running classpath based applications on java9.
> > I see two approaches:
> > 1) add a lot of tricks in every base maven plugin and make it very easy
> to
> > transition
> > 2) leave the complexity to developers who will add a lot of profiles and
> > hacks to detect java9
> >
> > My personal feeling is that I am very disappointed by the fact the few
> > developers diffs not report this issues to the maven community long time
> > ago. I think that the java9 adoption has not been taken into account by
> > most developers and this will be an huge pain for the java community.
> > I hope that Maven will help the java world to go on and to step over this
> > painful transition
> >
> > I will test your patch as soon as I can
> > Cheers
> > Enrico
> >
> > >> > I do not like the style how Oracle has changed Java to Java 9 and
> > > forced
> > > >> > all the world to use additional effort to adapt to Oracle
> > activities.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am facing more unhappy Java development teams with Java 9 in the
> > > >> future.
> > > >> > For instance as I have tried to implement users wish in Maven
> > Surefire
> > > >> > project and invested my personal time and effort to adapt to
> Oracle
> > > >> > requirements, this still does not convince me to say that Java 9
> is
> > > >> ready
> > > >> > to go.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This is my comment from Jira:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "This is not nice on Java 9 that they broke backwards
> compatibility
> > > and
> > > >> > force the world to use the switch to use --add-modules ALL-SYSTEM
> > > >> instead
> > > >> > of providing all modules installed in JRE. For instance, small JRE
> > > >> having
> > > >> > {{java.base}} has advantage on embedded systems and the only
> should
> > be
> > > >> > propagated. Big scope JRE should propagate all installed modules.
> > > >> > But for me it does not make security sense and common sense to
> force
> > > >> JRE to
> > > >> > provide modules. It should be opposite and the admin/Jenkins
> should
> > > >> > configure big scope JRE with selected modules propagated to Java
> > > runtime
> > > >> > applications.
> > > >> > If this admin does not do that then all modules should be
> available
> > by
> > > >> > default which is backwards compatibility for me and we do not have
> > to
> > > to
> > > >> > implement these stupid tricks."
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As far as we remember Java Security, the policies can be
> configured.
> > > >> > I can imaging same paradigm in Jigsaw/Java 9 and then the admin
> who
> > > has
> > > >> > installed JDK or JRE would "switch off" some modules. But
> opposite,
> > > that
> > > >> > means the script which starts Java app currently enables "all"
> > modules
> > > >> is
> > > >> > against security and against the principle of modular system
> because
> > > the
> > > >> > modules do not make sense then.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What makes sense to me is to enable "all java/javax" modules
> except
> > > for
> > > >> the
> > > >> > "com.sun" proprietary ones by default.
> > > >> > So yes enable them by default and please release specific JRE
> > > >> installations
> > > >> > with specific bunch of Java modules for specific use cases.
> > > >> > This means those modules in that particular release are all
> enabled
> > by
> > > >> > default if not configured otherwise by admin, e.g. Jenkins,
> > operation
> > > >> > staff, etc. (do NOT mean Sun packages - never visible).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Here it comes. The idea that we can install small 5MB/JRE on small
> > > Linux
> > > >> > device would be possible because Oracle would release such tiny
> JRE
> > > >> using
> > > >> > only "java.lang" and then another JRE installation using java.lang
> > and
> > > >> > java.utils, and later NIO and later "java.desktop", etc.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Then vendors of web browsers and Linux dist would be happy to
> > > integrate
> > > >> > small JRE into and use JavaFX.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > But now it is not possible because the modules are basically
> three:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > java.base == 37MB
> > > >> > java.desktop == 36MB
> > > >> > java.xml ==20MB
> > > >> >
> > > >> > All the other modules are pretty small but these three seen in
> > > "src.zip"
> > > >> > make the modular system unbalanced in size and nobody would ever
> > wish
> > > to
> > > >> > integrate them because they are still big. That means the problem
> > that
> > > >> > Oracle has with NIO implementation in com.sun package propagated
> to
> > > >> > "java.util", nobody in the world care and nobody should see as a
> > > >> problem to
> > > >> > split "java.base" much more.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If splitting "java.base" happened then not certified JVMs
> developed
> > at
> > > >> > Universities would for instance implement only "java.lang" and
> embed
> > > it
> > > >> in
> > > >> > to JVM and develop a new programming language on the top of Java.
> > But
> > > >> > implementing 10 packages in java.base is an effort again.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > One more thing is regarding the size of the modules.
> > > >> > You really did not help embedded systems and installations of
> > > browsers.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Enrico Olivelli <
> > eolive...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I would like to share my current pom configuration which lets me
> > to
> > > >> > > build and test java8 apps on latest and greatest jdk9
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > This profile is activated when using jdk9.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > This is based on a suggestion of Robert, its suggestion for the
> > > >> > > javadoc plugin is working great with surefire too
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > <profile>
> > > >> > > <id>jdk9</id>
> > > >> > > <activation>
> > > >> > > <jdk>[9,)</jdk>
> > > >> > > </activation>
> > > >> > > <build>
> > > >> > > <plugins>
> > > >> > > <plugin>
> > > >> > > <groupId>org.apache.maven.
> > plugins</groupId>
> > > >> > >
> > > <artifactId>maven-javadoc-plugin</artifactId>
> > > >> > > <configuration>
> > > >> > > <additionalparam>--add-modules
> > > >> > > ALL-SYSTEM</additionalparam>
> > > >> > > </configuration>
> > > >> > > </plugin>
> > > >> > > <plugin>
> > > >> > > <groupId>org.apache.maven.
> > plugins</groupId>
> > > >> > > <artifactId>maven-surefire-pl
> > > >> ugin</artifactId>
> > > >> > > <version>2.20</version>
> > > >> > > <configuration>
> > > >> > > <argLine>--add-modules
> > > >> ALL-SYSTEM</argLine>
> > > >> > > </configuration>
> > > >> > > </plugin>
> > > >> > > </plugins>
> > > >> > > </build>
> > > >> > > </profile>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -- Enrico
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 2017-04-24 19:08 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <
> khmarba...@gmx.de
> > >:
> > > >> > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > yes I will do within this week...
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Kind regards
> > > >> > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> > > >> > > > On 23/04/17 21:37, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Thank you Robert,
> > > >> > > >> I saw that you have merged my patch.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Is there any plan to release the new version of the war
> plugin?
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Enrico
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Il gio 13 apr 2017, 12:21 Paul Hammant <p...@hammant.org> ha
> > > >> scritto:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> I don't see any activity either, so my idea is to replace
> > > >> XStream,
> > > >> > > see
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> MWAR-397[1]
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Just for the record, Jörg is working through the Java9
> issues
> > > for
> > > >> > > XStream
> > > >> > > >>> presently - https://github.com/x-stream/
> > xstream/commits/master
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> - Paul
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> ---------
> > > >> > > > 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
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Tibor
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers
> > > Tibor
> > >
> > --
> >
> >
> > -- Enrico Olivelli
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Tibor
>
--
-- Enrico Olivelli
