Thanks Edward and Josh for your feedback and the additional information. Does anyone have any objections to us making Java 8 an official minimum requirement? (I really thought we had already agreed to this in the past, but I guess I am mistaken).
And - do we need to vote on this? Additionally, assuming we agree to this, is anyone able to (and willing to) update the apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080 build(s) to use java 8 ? On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 1:56 PM Edward Stangler <estang...@bradmark.com> wrote: > > Most definitely Java 8. > > That's the lowest LTS version available from AdoptOpenJDK / Adoptium: > > https://adoptopenjdk.net/releases.html > https://adoptium.net/releases.html > > https://adoptium.net/migration.html > > https://adoptopenjdk.net/icedtea-web.html > > Java 8 is also available from many other builds, like Azul Zulu and > Amazon Corretto (but strangely, not SapMachine). The next LTS version > is Java 11. Adoptium and Amazon Corretto will be supporting their Java > 8 builds until at least May 2026. > > Java 8 seems to play nicely with most things, and it's the last of the > traditional builds. It's available on Windows XP and later. > > This is a fantastic overview of Java versions: > > > https://www.marcobehler.com/guides/a-guide-to-java-versions-and-features > > > > On 1/12/2022 11:22 AM, Josh Tynjala wrote: > > I'm all for requiring Java 8 minimum. We originally required Java 6 > because > > that's what Flash Builder was most recently shipped with. > > > > At some point, Adobe posted instructions for how to make Flash Builder > use > > Java 7/8. In some cases, it's no longer possible to use Java 6, and it's > > probably not safe to use Java 6, because it no longer receives security > > updates. Adobe's instructions have now been taken down, but you can find > > them on archive.org: > > > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20210122145322/http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2018/02/running-adobe-flash-builder-on-mac-with-java-78.html > > > > Considering how challenging it is to set up Flash Builder today, I'm not > > sure that it's worth supporting Flash Builder anymore. > > > > Newer versions of Java can no longer target Java 6 anyway. Some can still > > target Java 7, but I've seen some that can only target Java 8 now. I say > > Java 8 sounds good to me as a new minimum. That's what I've been using as > > the minimum version for many projects over the last several years. > > > > -- > > Josh Tynjala > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:43 PM Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> What is our official minimum JDK? I had thought we had discussed this in > >> the past and agreed it needed to be 8 now, but I could find no > reference to > >> this discussion. Does anyone recall this? > >> > >> At the moment the maven CI build is happy with using java 8 language > >> features, because it is using java 8 to build with. But these other CI > >> builds using ant are not (it is not an ant thing, I assume it is simply > a > >> jdk thing on the build environment, or maybe it is something to do with > the > >> jenkins config?) > >> Is there any way we can align jdk of these builds with the maven build > on > >> apache to use java 8? > >> > >> I hit two errors today and had to backpedal on some java 8 level code > >> (which used a method reference as a predicate). > >> > >> The error referenced earlier in this thread has: > >> error: method references are not supported in -source 1.7 > >> > >> Another one in another thread (compiler-only build I think) > >> error: method references are not supported in -source 1.6 > >> > >> At the moment we can't use specific java 8 features because they fail on > >> these builds. So that means no newer language features/possible > >> optimizations that are available in java 8 (which was released around 8 > >> years ago). > >> > >> Just mentioning it... not urgent, but we probably should address it at > some > >> point, no? > >
