Note that Apache Commons Compress supports pack200. Gary
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, 09:52 Delany <delany.middle...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jeremy. We're talking about the possibility of a drop-in replacement. > But what you're suggesting requires alterations to the code, and having > struggled with JAXB and its many unofficial plugins I can vouch for the > difficulty in doing that. > Perhaps it would have been easier if OpenJDK took responsibility for > providing the packages and the plugin and setup a nice document somewhere > to explain, but that's not what I found. > > Anyway, today I'm sitting with a version of izpack that depends on the > Pack200 compression class removed from JDK17. Ok, so just add > https://github.com/pack200/pack200 right? Oh, but izpack expects > java.util.jar.Pack200 not io.pack200.Pack200. Should I update izpack? Yeah, > and I've tried twice already, and will try again. Also tried rebuilding the > izpack version from source, but it doesn't match with what was released. > Next I'll try shading, etc, etc. > Suffice to say there are issues. > Delany > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 14:34, Jeremy Landis <jeremylan...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > Delany, > > > > "You need toolchains if your code needs the JAXB classes removed in > JDK11. > > Delany" > > > > That isn't accurate. You do not need toolchains for jaxb. You need to > > add the correct libraries. I can understand that statement from a dev > that > > doesn't quite understand the history of EE inside java but its 100% easy > to > > do without adding toolchains. > > > > Jeremy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Delany <delany.middle...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 1:33 AM > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0 > > > > You need toolchains if your code needs the JAXB classes removed in JDK11. > > Delany > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 01:54, Henning Schmiedehausen < > > henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote: > > > > > To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: > > > > > > Do you still need toolchains with JDK 11/17? I set the release version > > > to "8" (or anything else) in my builds, ripped out all the toolchains > > > and it "just works". We have done this for Jdbi for ages (require Java > > > 11+ as the build JDK; we even enforce "latest LTS" for releases) and > > > compile to Java 8 bytecode. So far, we had zero complaints from users > > > that the resulting releases do not work / cause problems on JDK 8. > > > > > > It seems to me that toolchains are only relevant if you need to > > > compile to Java 1.6 or lower (shudder). The current LTS supports any > > > version post-7 as release target. > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > Oh, I am totally cool with Maven 4 requiring Java 17 to run. In fact, > > > this will give us an opportunity to actually use java 17 code to > > > *write* maven, which in turn will collapse all of those thousand > > > little domain objects into single line records. Can't wait for that. > > > :-) > > > > > > The challenge for plugin writers will be to support Maven 3.x (mostly > > > 3.8, > > > 3.9) and 4 evenly. The current set of available modules and libraries > > > makes that hard. A page with "use this to be compatible with that" > > > would be helpful. > > > > > > -h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 2:23 PM Delany <delany.middle...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Your inclination to ignore points of the debate doesn't do your own > > > > arguments any justice. > > > > Multiple times it's been explained that raising the required runtime > > > > JDK > > > in > > > > Maven 4 will not prevent you from > > > > - building with a lower JDK (via toolchains) > > > > - targeting a lower JDK (via the release property) > > > > - building with Maven 3 > > > > > > > > This is the main point of the debate, not the language. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 21:42, Hunter C Payne > > > > <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > * Attract devsAbsolutely not. If you want to attract devs, switch > > > > > to a language that is actually growing (no I'm advocating for > > > > > this). That > > > > isn't > > > > > Java. If anything, this will lose you devs. The company I work > > > > > for > > > will > > > > > be leaving Maven if you stop supporting Java8. That's 300 users > > > > > you > > > lose > > > > > right there. That's just 1 company. You will lose users in > > > > > droves if > > > > you > > > > > stop Java8 support. Many companies don't have/put enough > > > > > resources > > > into > > > > > this type of upgrade. Its hard to justify to the business and it > > > > > makes lots of work for devs (expensive). If it is cheaper to > > > > > switch build systems that to upgrade the JVM, that's exactly what > > > > > folks will do. My company certainly will (not my decision so > > > > > don't try to convince me, > > > I'm > > > > > not the one you have to convince). > > > > > > > > > > * CDS for non-OpenJ9-usersI'm not sure this is something that is > > > > > really taken advantage of by Maven. Perhaps I am wrong. > > > > > > > > > > * Better clarity of code (yes, I mean that)That you say that you > > > actually > > > > > mean this says it all. Clearly this is something that isn't > > > > > agreed > > > upon > > > > > universally. Your personal taste shouldn't decide the future of a > > > > project > > > > > used by so many others. > > > > > * No additional work (we don't need to migrate, just use the > > > > > features > > > > when > > > > > modifying a line for a bug/feature anyway)This is simply not true. > > > There > > > > > have been comments by devs on this very list, in this very > > > > > discussion > > > > that > > > > > disprove this point. It isn't OK to just ignore their input > > > > > because > > > you > > > > > really want to use lambdas. > > > > > > > > > > * We leave no one behind b/c of Maven 3.8/3.9, thus no > > > > > drawbacks.You > > > have > > > > > that backwards. If you leave Java8, you leave behind everyone who > > > can't > > > > > upgrade their source base. It seems to me that the size of the > > > > > group > > > of > > > > > Java8 folks you will leave behind is quite large. So your > > > > > argument > > > about > > > > > no drawbacks isn't credible. There are no drawbacks for you, that > > > isn't > > > > > the same as there being no drawbacks for the entire user base. > > > > > * By the time Maven 4 final is out, your views might have > > > > > changed!I > > > write > > > > > most of my code in Scala so I doubt it seriously. > > > > > > > > > > Your points are not nearly as strong as you imply with your tone. > > > > > Some > > > > of > > > > > them indicate a lack of understanding of some more advanced parts > > > > > of FP which is understandable for Java devs but doesn't make your > > > > > points correct. And your analysis of the impact on the userbase > > > > > is just plain wrong. If you want people to bomb this list with > > > > > complains, drop Java > > > 8 > > > > > support and enjoy the rage postings you get from 100s to 1000s of > > > > > devs > > > > who > > > > > work for companies and projects that don't have to resources to > > > upgrade. > > > > > > > > > > Hunter > > > > > PS Lambdas are only useful if there is function composition and > > > currying. > > > > > Java lacks both. So the debate over lambdas is pretty amusing to > me. > > > It > > > > > is just syntactic sugar. It doesn't actually give you the ability > > > > > to > > > do > > > > > other things like in Scala or Kotlin. So I don't really > > > > > understand why > > > > you > > > > > want to use them so much. Are for loops really that hard to > > > > > write? I > > > > mean > > > > > there is already so much ceremony in Java that saving 3 or 4 > > > > > keystrokes > > > > per > > > > > loop doesn't really make any difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:52:16 AM PDT, Tamás Cservenák < > > > > > ta...@cservenak.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Seems people missed this (somewhat related) thread: > > > > > > > > > > https://l/ > > > > > ists.apache.org%2Fthread%2Fkpsrb28nst84vtohwngy3140g1r0ydd4&data=0 > > > > > 5%7C01%7C%7Cfb40fc3fc64e4a82761708db664fa4cf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb43 > > > > > 5aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638216264486404797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d > > > > > 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3 > > > > > D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E1edIICCiPIKLDyysEEehIxEgA1zL09VYb53duEoB8 > > > > > 4%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, 20:40 Hunter C Payne > > > > > <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com .invalid> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Karl, I'm not sure I agree you have "stated a benefit" so > > far. > > > > > > There have been plenty of hand-wavy arguments but nothing really > > > solid. > > > > > > That's why you are getting so much push back. Point to a > > > > > > specific > > > > > feature > > > > > > you need or some other thing that would help the project in some > > > > > > significant way. At the moment, the argument is basically, "its > > > newer > > > > so > > > > > > its better", I'm sorry but that simply is not true. Make a > > > > > > better > > > case > > > > > and > > > > > > you will get less pushback. > > > > > > Hunter > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 06:03:26 AM PDT, Karl Heinz > > > > > > Marbaise < khmarba...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03.06.23 11:46, Hervé Boutemy wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really don't what benefit we get from going to Java 17 > > > > > > > > > > > > which was already part of the email: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the argument we don't need features of JDK17+ I see > > > > > > a > > > > number > > > > > > > of things which could make our handling/maintenance easier > > > > > > for > > > > example > > > > > > > using sealed classes to prevent exposing internal things to > > > > > > public > > > > > which > > > > > > > could be used etc. also some other small features (`var` for > > > > example; > > > > > > > Text-Blocks in Tests etc) or using records in some situation > > > (really > > > > > > immutability).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I perfectly see the impact we'll have on our users: for what > > > benefit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > notice that this will also impact all plugins: and given the > > > > > > > few > > > work > > > > > > done on > > > > > > > plugins to clearly show what plugin version remains compatible > > > with a > > > > > JDK > > > > > > > release, I feel we're not taking the topic the right way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le vendredi 2 juin 2023, 01:50:53 CEST Hunter C Payne a écrit : > > > > > > >> I'm not sure I would worry too much about that David. I > > > > > > >> think > > > most > > > > > > devs > > > > > > >> who want better syntax moved from Java sometime ago. They > > > > > > >> might > > > > still > > > > > > be > > > > > > >> on the JVM just not writing Java. Also, Maven is a mature > > > > project. I > > > > > > >> don't think devs considering contributing to it are thinking > > > > > > >> about > > > > > using > > > > > > >> the latest and greatest version of Java. Compatibility is > > > probably > > > > a > > > > > > >> bigger concern for the user base. Just my opinion. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Hunter > > > > > > >> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 04:17:26 PM PDT, David > > > > > > >> Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I wonder if having maven require java 8 syntax discourages > > > > > > >> any > > > > > > potential > > > > > > >> contributors who are used to coding using more recent > > > developments. > > > > I > > > > > > have > > > > > > >> no idea how to tell, but maybe someone else does. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> David Jencks > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> On Jun 1, 2023, at 3:02 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise < > > > khmarba...@gmx.de > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> my clear opinion is to go with most recent JDK LTS version > > > > > > >>> for > > > the > > > > > > >>> release point of Maven 4.0.0 which I assume will be JDK 21... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> That means clear the build time requirement which is > > > > > > >>> completely different from runtime of an application. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Older JDK's are supported by some vendors by having > > > > > > >>> particular > > > > > special > > > > > > >>> support which most of the time requires special contracts > > > > > > >>> (means > > > > also > > > > > > >>> paying money for it)..some of them offering builds without > > > > > > >>> paying > > > > > money > > > > > > >>> yes.. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Older runtime target are supported with different approaches > > > > > > >>> like Toolchain or via `--release XX` which exists since > JDK9+. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Furthermore if someone is not capable of upgrading the build > > > > > > environment > > > > > > >>> to JDK9+ they can continue to use Maven 3.8.X or Maven > 3.9.X... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> If it would be requirement to port things back to 3.8.X or > > > > > > >>> 3.9.X > > > it > > > > > > >>> could be handled by someone who has the time etc. to do that > > ... > > > if > > > > > > not, > > > > > > >>> those people might think of paying someone to do that work... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The given argument about JPMS for migration causes issues is > > > > > > >>> from > > > > my > > > > > > >>> point of view false-positive because migration to newer JDK > > > > versions > > > > > > >>> does not require JPMS usage... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Even platforms like AWS support JDK17 in the meantime which > > > > > > >>> is > > > the > > > > > > >>> runtime... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Based on the maintenance part it would mean in consequence > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > downgrade > > > > > > >>> to even JDK7... (or even lower) because you can get support > > > > > > >>> for > > > > older > > > > > > >>> JDK version in some ways... (JDK7 from azul for example) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Kind regards > > > > > > >>> Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > > > > https://www.o/ > > > racle.com%2Fjava%2Ftechnologies%2Fjava-se-support-roadmap.html&data=05 > > > %7C01%7C%7Cfb40fc3fc64e4a82761708db664fa4cf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaa > > > aaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638216264486404797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi > > > MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7 > > > C%7C&sdata=s92AGcmmP%2BxmWuUWMdvqOEOPhZQARF6jT4gSsMY8lRI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
