>> As a user and non-contributor, I would vote for bumping up versions (Java 7 to 8, Jetty to 9.4). The move to Java 8 is something I would have to do if I had any Java 7 projects left. And Jetty has lots of used features that I'm not hearing proposals for replacement for.
I couldn't agree more. Losing support for Java 7 is both tolerable and desirable. Losing support for embedded Jetty is not acceptable, not without a replacement which wasn't proposed. On Tuesday, 13 April 2021 at 19:01:04 UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > As a user and non-contributor, I would vote for bumping up versions (Java > 7 to 8, Jetty to 9.4). The move to Java 8 is something I would have to do > if I had any Java 7 projects left. And Jetty has lots of used features that > I'm not hearing proposals for replacement for. > On 2021-04-11 9:15 a.m., Jens wrote: > > Hi, > > we all know the issue: DevMode bundles Jetty and people are using it even > though we do not recommend it. Consequently people are complaining that > bundled Jetty is too old. So every once in a while we upgrade it. > > Currently with GWT 2.9.0 the situation is: > - GWT SDK is compiled to Java 7 byte code > - GWT Compiler requires ASM 7.x to support Java 11 > - DevMode bundles Jetty 9.2 which uses ASM 5.x > - gwt-dev.jar can only bundle a single Jetty, since we do not relocate it. > However there is already a question asking for Jakarta Servlet support, > e.g. Jetty 11 / Tomcat 10. > > Currently the ASM version misalignment between Jetty 9.2 and GWT compiler > causes classpath issues. This could be fixed by upgrading to Jetty 9.4 and > consequently compiling GWT SDK to Java 8 byte code as that is a requirement > for Jetty 9.4. > > However given the new Jakarta namespace and first questions about > supporting it, I am wondering if it wouldn't be wiser to remove embedded > Jetty from DevMode now, invest some work to make GWT-RPC and RequestFactory > useable with old javax.servlet and new jakarta.servlet namespaces and > finally cut a 2.10 or 3.0 release given the removal of embedded Jetty. > > Personally I would strongly vote for removal because GWT nowadays is in > maintenance mode with only very few changes here and there to support J2CL > better. Even reviews from contributors are rare these days I guess. Every > action we take nowadays should take maintenance effort into account and a > low maintenance effort is obviously preferred. If we upgrade Jetty to 9.4 > we still have that Jakarta issue coming up more often in the future for > sure. > > Generally this would be a decision made by GWT steering group but I have > no idea if this group still exists. So I am asking here for a decision how > to move on. > > -- J. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "GWT Contributors" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/622544a8-85d5-41c5-b8da-7a733667eb89n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/622544a8-85d5-41c5-b8da-7a733667eb89n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/4040caf5-5a05-4722-a971-b684aea5dcb4n%40googlegroups.com.
