Hi everyone, > we are considering to increase the required Java version for > ImageJ2/Fiji from 6 to 7.
Such a change is not something that could happen overnight. To elaborate a bit on the challenges and logistics: - Java 7 is not available to everyone. In particular, it is not available for OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard and earlier. Our current estimate is that ~1% of users use such operating systems. While upgrading is an option for some, it is not possible on older hardware. - As Michael & Birgit point out, ImageJ has problems when run with Java 7 in some scenarios, and on some platforms. Also, as I mentioned on another recent thread, there are performance issues with repainting on OS X with Java 7 (but not, it seems, with Java 6 or 8). - Existing Fiji installations using a bundled Java -- the majority of them: the Windows and Linux bundles -- would need to be upgraded somehow. But the ImageJ Updater does not support upgrading the version of Java. Either: A) someone would need to do the work of improving the Updater to upgrade Java automatically; or B) all Fiji users would need to manually upgrade it, and/or download and unpack a new Fiji. I would strongly prefer option A, but the work is involved and I personally would not have time to do it any time soon. With these points in mind, my current preference is to keep supporting Java 6 for the time being. For developers wishing to use Java-7-specific features, a separate update site would be a safer route. That said, if a motivated party is able to: 1) Make the Updater smarter about versions of Java -- ideally, implementing UI that lets the user specify and switch between JREs similar to e.g. Eclipse. 2) Verify that the most critical problems in behavior are already fixed, and/or fix them. 3) Thoroughly test on all three major platforms -- ideally with both Oracle Java 7 and OpenJDK 7. Then moving forward with the switch would be feasible. Regards, Curtis On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Tobias Pietzsch <pietz...@mpi-cbg.de> wrote: > Hi, > > we are considering to increase the required Java version for ImageJ2/Fiji > from 6 to 7. > Java 6 has been unsupported (ie, no more fixes and updates) for over 1.5 > years now, Java 7 is around for a long time, and developers are moving on > to Java 8 even. > > Before we just move to Java 7, we want to see what users would think about > this. So, are there any strong opinions out there? > > best regards, > Tobias > > On 05 Dec 2014, at 17:23, Curtis Rueden <ctrue...@wisc.edu> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Mark Hiner wrote: > > my only hesitation towards agreeing with consensus here is that these > > particular mailing lists seem likely to be biased towards active > > developers (who I would expect to prefer newer Java versions). > > I agree. While personally I would love to move to Java 7 or even Java 8, > and even if we all support that here, we must then ask on the main ImageJ > mailing list to get feedback from all users first. > > Regards, > Curtis > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Mark Hiner <hi...@wisc.edu> wrote: > >> Jay, >> >Can anyone else confirm this experience? >> Yep, Yosemite dropped Java 6. Definitely an annoying extra barrier for >> developers. But there's a FAQ entry >> <http://imagej.net/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_set_up_Java_6_on_OS_X.3F> >> now! >> >> Michael, >> >When replying to a post like this, is it the done thing to reply to the >> list in general or should I be replying just to the original poster? >> You did the right thing - reply to the whole list. That way there is a >> complete record of any discussion-especially important on a general topic >> like this. Personally, if I ever get a private mail in response to >> something, I cc the list in my reply (see also: >> http://imagej.net/Philosophy#Open_source) >> >> Out of curiosity, how do people feel about establishing set guidelines >> for when to advance Java versions (e.g. if it's 18 months past the >> end-of-life release and under 2% of the users would be affected, just >> upgrade)? There will certainly be times when this question will come up >> again... and my only hesitation towards agreeing with consensus here is >> that these particular mailing lists seem likely to be biased towards active >> developers (who I would expect to prefer newer Java versions). >> >> Best, >> Mark >> >> P.S. Thanks for starting this thread Tobias! >> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Lee Kamentsky <l...@broadinstitute.org> >> wrote: >> >>> For CelllProfiler, there's some packaging work that would need to be >>> done (we bundle the JRE with the Windows version and the Centos 6 RPM has >>> Java 6 as a dependency). We rely on the system Java for the Mac presently >>> and I don't have a clear idea of what range of Java 7 support to expect on >>> our user's Macs. >>> >>> It certainly seems like there is a lot of pressure to move to Java 7, so >>> my vote would be to move to Java 7, even considering the above. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Tobias Pietzsch <pietz...@mpi-cbg.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> what is everyones opinion on moving the IJ2/Fiji stack to a new version >>>> of Java, i.e., Java 7. >>>> Java 7 has been around for more than 3 years now. The end-of-life final >>>> public release of Java 6 was more than 1.5 years ago. >>>> >>>> Benefits I see are the following: >>>> >>>> * We could use the “new" Java 7 libraries. For example the Fork/Join >>>> framework would come handy in defining multi-threading interfaces in >>>> scijava-common (to be used in imagej-ops for example). Or the NIO2 stuff >>>> (java.nio.file) >>>> >>>> * We would benefit from improvements of type inference for generics in >>>> the compiler. No more jumping through hoops to fix “errors” in code that >>>> should compile with Java 6 but doesn’t. (Plus we could use the diamond >>>> operator to shorten generics instantiations.) >>>> >>>> * We could use third-party libraries that only support Java 7. For >>>> example I’m using Jetty in a project that can therefore not be part of Fiji >>>> currently. (This mail was more or less triggered by me looking into >>>> http://ojalgo.org who maybe went a bit over the top and already >>>> abandoned Java 7 for Java 8). I think it is only a matter of time until we >>>> will have a problem with third-party libraries that we already use >>>> abandoning Java 6. >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not have a clear picture of what the downsides would be. Johannes >>>> always said that people on old macs are tied to an old java version and >>>> that we do not want to leave those users behind. It would be interesting to >>>> know how many people that actually would impact. >>>> >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> best regards, >>>> Tobias >>>> >>>
_______________________________________________ ImageJ-devel mailing list ImageJ-devel@imagej.net http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
