I think JDK8 is already being used on CI. I see it in the path on that server.
IIRC, a JDK can be instructed to present older JDK APIs and output older JDK
bytecode. We kept the settings as we received them from Adobe to ensure FB
compatibility. Feel free to change the API and bytecode to 8 although I think
that means some code will need to be modified to work with the version 8 APIs.
-Alex
On 1/13/22, 11:41 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fadoptopenjdk.net%2Freleases.html&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cecb56e70480a4f20c39908d9d7314e47%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637777429038095516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=PT5KXDRQqA0Y7qLd70jY5R5eAgegxsU%2Bm7oDkdWsQ3c%3D&reserved=0
>>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fadoptium.net%2Freleases.html&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cecb56e70480a4f20c39908d9d7314e47%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637777429038095516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=MKPlhidG5s8Dy5L11j30ITXhm8vvcZ8nzfJVqlOMBDw%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fadoptium.net%2Fmigration.html&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cecb56e70480a4f20c39908d9d7314e47%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637777429038095516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=YIPtv0Nx8N1kJPFyV%2F08yEchKImcr0cEAuc97zpE3TI%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fadoptopenjdk.net%2Ficedtea-web.html&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cecb56e70480a4f20c39908d9d7314e47%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637777429038095516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=S3ksIARipAzYkNG3h9nnpPjT%2Bb5XOvy2sCm8v6Hrkzo%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marcobehler.com%2Fguides%2Fa-guide-to-java-versions-and-features&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cecb56e70480a4f20c39908d9d7314e47%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637777429038095516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=juEbCoVsljblVbDf%2BBtQ1IiRWnvnl6seTaC2bnZRNZo%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>> 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20210122145322%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fblogs.adobe.com%2Fflashplayer%2F2018%2F02%2Frunning-adobe-flash-builder-on-mac-with-java-78.html&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cecb56e70480a4f20c39908d9d7314e47%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637777429038095516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=X0r%2FXCn6KWdwpcqO9JswO%2Bi5%2FvO1h5HYsrosVokvV9M%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cecb56e70480a4f20c39908d9d7314e47%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637777429038095516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=54Dtu0PfRqwkRQwJThuCavt72mh0tVM0C80AME5C0lo%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
