> (I really thought we had already agreed to this in the past, > but I guess I am mistaken).
I also have a vague memory of discussing this and agreeing to Java 8. No objections from me. I don’t see a compelling reason to supporting anything less than Java 8 today. Harbs > On Jan 14, 2022, at 5:52 AM, Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? >> >>
