I tried toolchains but dropped it because of the exorbitant performance costs. A multi-module build that normally built in 3:50 took 10:34, and that's with toolchaining only maven-compiler-plugin. Delany
On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 00:21, Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@apache.org> wrote: > KH just released a video on toolchains. > It's much easier than I remembered. > > I'm changing my vote to 17. I don't see a reason to use 11 which will be > out of support soon. It's really just two properties used three times. > > > https://github.com/khmarbaise/youtube-videos/blob/main/episode-toolchains/pom.xml > > https://youtu.be/-KbDcJcglPc > > Thanks Karl Heinz for sorting this out. > We should really promote toolchains. > > +1 for 17. > > - Ben > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2022, 21:33 Arnaud Héritier, <aherit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I would say java 11 for maven 4 and 17 for maven 5 with the hope that it > > won’t be here in many years > > > > Le jeu. 21 juil. 2022 à 18:53, Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@apache.org> a > > écrit : > > > > > I was going to answer: go for 17. > > > > > > But running the tests on the same language level is really a good > > argument. > > > So much changed: HttpClient, TLS and cipher suites, DNS resolution > > > (starting with Java 18 it will be pluggable!) etc. > > > > > > Yes, in theory it should not fail. But this is (sadly) a strong > argument > > > against using Java 11+. > > > > > > If it's just for language features, we could also use kotlin, groovy or > > > just a library like javaslang (now vavr.io) to receive some amount of > > what > > > you would like to see. Groovy is even an Apache project and kotlin has > > > excellent support. Both can mimic sealed classes, have advanced > features > > > like traits etc. > > > > > > Not saying I'm a big fan of this myself, but it *might* be an option to > > > think about. > > > > > > Of course we could scare devs away or attract them. Who knows. > > > > > > So, I deeply regret it, but I'd say go for 8 and make an early Maven 5 > > > release with Java 17, then make all the major changes (new pom etc) in > > > Maven 6 instead of Maven 5. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2022, 17:08 Jorge Solórzano, <jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I agree with Romain (and also many others that have the same > > > > concerns), expecting that the behavior of testing with one JDK that > > > > targets a lower JDK will "just works" is naive. > > > > > > > > There are differences at bytecode level, just compile a class with > > > > JDK17 --release 11 and the same class with JDK11 --release 11 and > then > > > > compare with diffoscope to see them, this is one of the reasons that > > > > you need to use the same major JDK version to get Reproducible > Builds, > > > > you can't expect a build to be reproducible even if you target to the > > > > same release. > > > > > > > > I don't expect the bytecode differences to be a real issue, yet > > > > without proper testing (using the same runtime that you target) you > > > > can't be sure. > > > > > > > > The HttpClient is one example where you have things like this bug: > > > > https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8245245, fixed > > > > only in Java 16+, meaning that while it *works* on Java 17, it will > > > > fail on Java 11. > > > > > > > > We all agree that Toolchains is the way to go for this kind of thing, > > > > but it's important to mention that Toolchains create some friction > for > > > > end users and a more involved setup. > > > > > > > > And please don't get me wrong, I'm all for using JDK 17, but user > > > > experience is also important. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 4:23 PM Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Was more due to tests failling but there is no guarantee there is > no > > > > > difference in the bytecode on one side and the most important IMHO > is > > > the > > > > > fact the run behavior can be different so at the end of the day you > > > cant > > > > > assume that because your build with java17 -release 8 worked that > it > > > will > > > > > run on your prod. > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 20 juil. 2022 à 16:16, Tomo Suzuki > > <suzt...@google.com.invalid > > > > > > > > a > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Romain, > > > > > > > > > > > > > the while loop was not exactly the same > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you observe the difference in the while loop bytecode cause > an > > > > issue in > > > > > > Java 8 users? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tomo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Arnaud Héritier > > Twitter/GitHub/... : aheritier > > >
