On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 09:48, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sorry Tibor, but I'm not going to do this. > > We've said that simply changing source/target(/release) to 1.8 is not a > good reason to require Java 8. > Now with the changes as mentioned in this thread (new APIs based on Java > Functions) we finally have this good reason. > > I'm not going to explain why the move to Java 8 is important. I'm only > interested in good arguments why to stay on Java 7 and so far I haven't > seen any. > People must understand that we're talking about the Java Runtime that > Maven requires. There's a clear separation between Mavens runtime and the > JDK. If you want to compile your code with an earlier JDK, that's already > possible for a long time (but I guess most people simply use the Maven > Runtime as their JDK). > > For those that argue that they must stay on Java 7 for their own projects > must also keep in mind that with such statement they block the evolution > of Maven for the whole Java community. > > I only saw a negative vote in relation with the Google Cloud Platform. > Let > this be a motivation for them to move forward too. Google should have > enough resources to come up with a solution, either move to Java 8, > maintain a backported version of Maven or maybe there are other solutions. > > Based on the responses on this thread I will continue with the proposed > changed. A first PR has already been reviewed, and there are still a > couple of TODO's I need to work on and I'll inform related tools > regarding > these changes. > +1 > > I started the thread with one other question: do we need a 3.6.3 > regression release? > +1 to asking the question. Unclear to me if there is a need, but we should certainly ask it especially if 3.7.0 will involve a big change in terms of separation of the build pom from the consumer pom The only thing I noticed are confirmations that there are regressions, but > they are related to third party plugins/extensions/tools. Hopefully they > can help analyze to help their own product. > Based on that I'll put my focus fully Maven 3.7.0. > > thanks, > Robert > > On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 20:22:06 +0200, Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > The topic related to TLS is only related to runtime, means JDK, which is > > under the control of the particular user or CI. > > I guess the user can easily find the answer: > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50824789/why-am-i-getting-received-fatal-alert-protocol-version-or-peer-not-authentic > > > > The thing is that we need to specify: > > + advantages of Java 1.8 in code (Lambda, brief code, maybe) > > + disadvantages of Java 1.8 in code (Streams performance when/how/what > > approach???) > > > > Write notices for developers on the internal Wiki: > > + toolchains > > + limitations and solutions for disadvantages > > + conditions when and how to migrate from J7 to J8 > > > > and then we should Vote for J8. > > > > And there are users who is has J6 and J7 and they may require us to > > maintain the old version 3.6.x. > > What to do in this case? > > Is the toolchain enough? Usually it is in ordinal projects! > > > > Cheers > > T > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:52 PM Stephen Connolly < > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 16:49, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On 03.10.19 17:03, Tibor Digana wrote: > >> > > This is not very serious discussion since we saw users on our > >> mailing > >> > > list who said that he is using Java 1.6 compiler and JDK7 in Maven. > >> > > >> > Would that change anything? Using JDK 8 for Maven and using JDK 6 for > >> > compiling/test... > >> > > >> > > >> > > Serious discussion would uncover pros/cons and impact analysis. > >> > > > >> > > I would have a problem with Java 1.8 in target and source code but I > >> > > have problem that we excluded our users from the VOTE. > >> > > >> > > Regarding Java 1.7 we clearly uncovered the migration plan, > >> versions of > >> > > plugins, core etc. Here nothing like that exists - only that > >> somebody > >> > > created a Jira ticket. > >> > > >> > Hm...all plugins etc. running on JDK 7+...so in the first step we just > >> > upgrade the minimum for Maven Core only (3.7.0)... (Apart from > having > >> a > >> > plugin which is JDK8 minimum already). > >> > > >> > Plugins can upgrade to JDK 8 minimum as needed/wished afterwards > (may > >> be > >> > we could do a version identification...but at the moment I don't see a > >> > need for that cause they work on JDK7+). > >> > > >> > >> Also, to my mind, unless the plugin specifically needs features in Maven > >> 3.7.0 there is added reason for the plugin to stay on JDK7 until it > >> bumps > >> the core version of Maven it depends on (or it finds a use-case > >> requiring > >> Java 8) > >> > >> Finally, upgrading to Java 8 is basically a must have for easier TLS > >> certificate validation as the JDK7 distributions do not all have good > >> current TLS root certs > >> > >> > >> > Kind regards > >> > Karl Heinz Marbaise > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Technically I would be interested if somebody could explain what NEW > >> > > Security API is in Java 1.8 and performance impact of Streams API. > >> > > That's the impact in the source code. > >> > > Somebody has other questions too. > >> > > Then we can write Wiki as well as rules, conditions and plan. > >> > > > >> > > Cheers > >> > > Tibor17 > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:55 PM Karl Heinz Marbaise > >> <khmarba...@gmx.de > >> > > <mailto:khmarba...@gmx.de>> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > On 03.10.19 14:15, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > >> > > > Strong -1 on Java 8 as the minimum version. Google Cloud > >> Platform > >> > has > >> > > > lots of products and customers that still require Java 7. If > >> Maven > >> > > > requires Java 8, we'd have to stick to the latest of > >> whichever > >> > > release > >> > > > does support Java 7 for at least a year and I'm guessing > >> longer. > >> > > > >> > > Hm.. first Java 7 is out for eight years now (2011) (End of > >> live) > >> and > >> > > has no public updates for security/bug fixes etc. since 2015 > >> > > > >> > > Furthermore Java 8 is out for five years (2014) so to be > honest > >> I > >> > > wouldn't trust an environment which is not upgrading etc. in > >> > particular > >> > > in a clould environment... > >> > > > >> > > Why hadn't started Google to update their environment over the > >> time > >> > to > >> > > JDK 8 etc. (I think they have much more resources than anyone). > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > One more thing is: > >> > > There is a difference between running Maven to build for > >> example > >> > > with JDK 8 and running your resulting artifacts (see > >> toolchain > >> > > comment > >> > > from Stephen Connolly.. > >> > > > >> > > Kind regards > >> > > Karl Heinz Marbaise > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > [1]: > >> > > > >> https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/java-se-support-roadmap.html > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Robert Scholte > >> > > <rfscho...@apache.org <mailto:rfscho...@apache.org>> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Hi, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> TLDR; introduce maven.experimental.buildconsumer and push > >> Java > >> > > requirement > >> > > >> to Java 8 > >> > > >> > >> > > >> now that Maven 3.6.2 is out for a couple of weeks, it seems > >> like > >> > > we didn't > >> > > >> face real regressions. > >> > > >> The only one might be tricky is the issue related to Tycho. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> However, I think we're ready to push Maven to the next > >> level. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> For those actively reading this list, they should > recognize > >> the > >> > > need for > >> > > >> splitting up the pom as it is on the local system versus the > >> pom > >> > > being > >> > > >> uploaded. Once we truly control this mechanism we can > think > >> of > >> > > >> improvements on model 5.0.0 and new fileformats. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I've created and implemented MNG-6656[1]. It also contains a > >> zip > >> > > with an > >> > > >> example (original, patched, README) to understand what's > >> > happening. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> In order to make this successful, we need IDEs and CI > >> Servers > >> to > >> > > >> understand and support these changes. The likely need to > >> > > implement one of > >> > > >> the interfaces[2]. > >> > > >> The new interface uses Java8 Functions (and especially > >> > > SAXEventFactory is > >> > > >> way easier to read+maintain with Java 8). I've tried to keep > >> > > Maven Java 7 > >> > > >> compatible, but that was too hard to do. > >> > > >> So I'd like to use this opportunity to move Maven forward > >> and > >> > start > >> > > >> requiring Java 8. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> There are some other improvements I'd like to add (those > >> > > messages will > >> > > >> follow), so this will imply that it will take some time > >> before > >> > > we do a new > >> > > >> release. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> WDTY, > >> > > >> Robert > >> > > >> > >> > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6656 > >> > > >> [2] > >> https://github.com/apache/maven/compare/MNG-6656?expand=1 > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > 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 > >
