Re: Cutting over to Java 7
ing > > towards > > > > or > > > > > > > planning for Java7/8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for keeping Java6 until the next major bump. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Mark Struberg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next > major > > > > > version > > > > > > > bump (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of > > > course > > > > > > keep a > > > > > > > ds-1.x maintenance branch even after that for a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > > > > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek < > > > > > > > gpetra...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a > > real > > > > > > > benefit for > > > > > > > >> us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this > point). > > > > > > > >> in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including > > > > optional > > > > > > > >> features). > > > > > > > >> ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some > > > vendors > > > > > > > require > > > > > > > >> it... > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> regards, > > > > > > > >> gerhard > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) < > > > > wro...@ford.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our > > > > > applications > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > >>> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server > > 8.0.0.x. > > > > > This > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > >>> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend > the > > > > money > > > > > to > > > > > > > >>> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this > > is > > > > > > > prohibitively > > > > > > > >>> expensive without a powerful use case. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our > > > > internal > > > > > > > >> shared > > > > > > > >>> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We > > > plan > > > > on > > > > > > > >>> developing almost all applications against Java6 until > that > > > > time, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > >>> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at > an > > > > > > > enterprise > > > > > > > >>> level any open source software that no longer patches and > > > > supports > > > > > > > Java6 > > > > > > > >>> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We > > > understand > > > > > > that > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > >>> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > &g
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
branch even after that for a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > > > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek < > > > > > > gpetra...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > >> > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a > real > > > > > > benefit for > > > > > > >> us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). > > > > > > >> in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including > > > optional > > > > > > >> features). > > > > > > >> ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some > > vendors > > > > > > require > > > > > > >> it... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> regards, > > > > > > >> gerhard > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) < > > > wro...@ford.com > > > > >: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our > > > > applications > > > > > > can > > > > > > >>> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server > 8.0.0.x. > > > > This > > > > > > only > > > > > > >>> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the > > > money > > > > to > > > > > > >>> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this > is > > > > > > prohibitively > > > > > > >>> expensive without a powerful use case. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our > > > internal > > > > > > >> shared > > > > > > >>> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We > > plan > > > on > > > > > > >>> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that > > > time, > > > > > and > > > > > > >>> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an > > > > > > enterprise > > > > > > >>> level any open source software that no longer patches and > > > supports > > > > > > Java6 > > > > > > >>> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We > > understand > > > > > that > > > > > > this > > > > > > >>> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> ~john > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > > > > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > > > > > > >>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com > > > > > > >>> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, > > Todd > > > > > (T.B.) > > > > > > >>> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Hi Marvin, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote > thread > > > > from > > > > > > last > > > > > > >>> month here: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > &
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
; > > > require > > > > > >> it... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> regards, > > > > > >> gerhard > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) < > > wro...@ford.com > > > >: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our > > > applications > > > > > can > > > > > >>> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. > > > This > > > > > only > > > > > >>> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the > > money > > > to > > > > > >>> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is > > > > > prohibitively > > > > > >>> expensive without a powerful use case. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our > > internal > > > > > >> shared > > > > > >>> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We > plan > > on > > > > > >>> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that > > time, > > > > and > > > > > >>> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an > > > > > enterprise > > > > > >>> level any open source software that no longer patches and > > supports > > > > > Java6 > > > > > >>> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We > understand > > > > that > > > > > this > > > > > >>> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> ~john > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > > > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > > > > > >>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com > > > > > >>> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, > Todd > > > > (T.B.) > > > > > >>> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Hi Marvin, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread > > > from > > > > > last > > > > > >>> month here: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've > > > seen > > > > > the > > > > > >>> Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, > EE 7 > > > > > systems > > > > > >>> were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable > is > > > one > > > > I > > > > > can > > > > > >>> think of off the top of my head). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. > > If > > > > you > > > > > >> guys > > > > > >>> find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel > free > > > to > > > > > raise > > > > > >>> them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> John > > > > > >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll < > > > marvint...@gtcgroup.com > > > > > >>> <mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: > > > > > >>> A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our > > > portfolio > > > > of > > > > > >>> 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is > > difficult > > > to > > > > > know > > > > > >>> how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to > > > begin > > > > > in > > > > > >>> calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> _Marvin > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> -Original Message- > > > > > >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org > > > > >>> johndam...@apache.org>] > > > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM > > > > > >>> To: deltaspike > > > > > >> mailto:dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> All, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, > wanted > > > to > > > > > >> share > > > > > >>> them and build out some ideas. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide > > that > > > > > we're > > > > > >>> going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as > > 1.7. > > > > > If we > > > > > >>> need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge > > > back > > > > > in when > > > > > >>> done. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor > > release > > > > > had the > > > > > >>> most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical > and > > > > shows > > > > > >>> implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead > as > > > we'd > > > > > >> need > > > > > >>> to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't > > had > > > > to > > > > > >> do it > > > > > >>> thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be > > > > acceptable > > > > > since > > > > > >>> most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that > > > we'd > > > > > >> run > > > > > >>> into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different > > > ideas > > > > to > > > > > >>> throw out. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> John > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
> > >>> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is > > > > prohibitively > > > > >>> expensive without a powerful use case. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our > internal > > > > >> shared > > > > >>> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan > on > > > > >>> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that > time, > > > and > > > > >>> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an > > > > enterprise > > > > >>> level any open source software that no longer patches and > supports > > > > Java6 > > > > >>> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand > > > that > > > > this > > > > >>> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ~john > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > > > > >>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com > > > > >>> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd > > > (T.B.) > > > > >>> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi Marvin, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread > > from > > > > last > > > > >>> month here: > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've > > seen > > > > the > > > > >>> Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 > > > > systems > > > > >>> were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is > > one > > > I > > > > can > > > > >>> think of off the top of my head). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. > If > > > you > > > > >> guys > > > > >>> find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free > > to > > > > raise > > > > >>> them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> John > > > > >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll < > > marvint...@gtcgroup.com > > > > >>> <mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: > > > > >>> A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our > > portfolio > > > of > > > > >>> 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is > difficult > > to > > > > know > > > > >>> how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to > > begin > > > > in > > > > >>> calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _Marvin > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -Original Message- > > > > >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org > > > >>> johndam...@apache.org>] > > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM > > > > >>> To: deltaspike > > > > >> mailto:dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> All, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted > > to > > > > >> share > > > > >>> them and build out some ideas. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide > that > > > > we're > > > > >>> going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as > 1.7. > > > > If we > > > > >>> need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge > > back > > > > in when > > > > >>> done. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor > release > > > > had the > > > > >>> most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and > > > shows > > > > >>> implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as > > we'd > > > > >> need > > > > >>> to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't > had > > > to > > > > >> do it > > > > >>> thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be > > > acceptable > > > > since > > > > >>> most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that > > we'd > > > > >> run > > > > >>> into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different > > ideas > > > to > > > > >>> throw out. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> John > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
@gerhard So you're saying its coincidence that the Java 6 versions fail? Basically, its not random releases. Its the latest Java 6 supported by the asf infra on Jenkins. John On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:42 PM Gerhard Petracek wrote: > @john: > our ci-jobs are just about the basic compatibility with the different > versions of owb, weld and several (open-source-)ee-servers. > there are only few which test the basic compatibility with different > versions of the jdk explicitly (e.g. jdk8). > we never test against all jdk-releases (it's always a "random" release - we > just configure the major-version). > esp. with jdk7 we saw issues caused by different reasons with specific/old > versions of the jdk (in most cases one of the maven-plugins failed -> it > wasn't even ds itself). > -> we can never test all >jdk releases< in combination with all > cdi-implementations and ee-servers. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2016-04-09 15:13 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament : > > > Actually the main reason I brought it up was that we currently cannot > > guarantee inter-operability with Java 6 any longer. If I look at our CI > > tests, very few of the tests that actually run against Java 6 > environments > > pass. > > > > This page should give a clearer indication of that problem: > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/DeltaSpike/job/DeltaSpike%20for%20CDI%201.0/ > > > > John > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM Cody Lerum wrote: > > > > > At this point it seems the main driver for dropping Java6 is to > > > discourage its use. I think there is sufficient discouragement > > > elsewhere and anyone with active or new projects is working towards or > > > planning for Java7/8. > > > > > > +1 for keeping Java6 until the next major bump. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Mark Struberg > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. > > > > > > > > Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next major > version > > > bump (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of course > > keep a > > > ds-1.x maintenance branch even after that for a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek < > > > gpetra...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real > > > benefit for > > > >> us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). > > > >> in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional > > > >> features). > > > >> ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors > > > require > > > >> it... > > > >> > > > >> regards, > > > >> gerhard > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) >: > > > >> > > > >>> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our > applications > > > can > > > >>> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. > This > > > only > > > >>> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money > to > > > >>> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is > > > prohibitively > > > >>> expensive without a powerful use case. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal > > > >> shared > > > >>> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on > > > >>> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, > > and > > > >>> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an > > > enterprise > > > >>> level any open source software that no longer patches and supports > > > Java6 > > > >>> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand > > that > > > this > > > >>> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > > > >&
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
@john: our ci-jobs are just about the basic compatibility with the different versions of owb, weld and several (open-source-)ee-servers. there are only few which test the basic compatibility with different versions of the jdk explicitly (e.g. jdk8). we never test against all jdk-releases (it's always a "random" release - we just configure the major-version). esp. with jdk7 we saw issues caused by different reasons with specific/old versions of the jdk (in most cases one of the maven-plugins failed -> it wasn't even ds itself). -> we can never test all >jdk releases< in combination with all cdi-implementations and ee-servers. regards, gerhard 2016-04-09 15:13 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament : > Actually the main reason I brought it up was that we currently cannot > guarantee inter-operability with Java 6 any longer. If I look at our CI > tests, very few of the tests that actually run against Java 6 environments > pass. > > This page should give a clearer indication of that problem: > > https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/DeltaSpike/job/DeltaSpike%20for%20CDI%201.0/ > > John > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM Cody Lerum wrote: > > > At this point it seems the main driver for dropping Java6 is to > > discourage its use. I think there is sufficient discouragement > > elsewhere and anyone with active or new projects is working towards or > > planning for Java7/8. > > > > +1 for keeping Java6 until the next major bump. > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Mark Struberg > > > wrote: > > > Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. > > > > > > Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next major version > > bump (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of course > keep a > > ds-1.x maintenance branch even after that for a while. > > > > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek < > > gpetra...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real > > benefit for > > >> us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). > > >> in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional > > >> features). > > >> ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors > > require > > >> it... > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> gerhard > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) : > > >> > > >>> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications > > can > > >>> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This > > only > > >>> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to > > >>> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is > > prohibitively > > >>> expensive without a powerful use case. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal > > >> shared > > >>> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on > > >>> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, > and > > >>> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an > > enterprise > > >>> level any open source software that no longer patches and supports > > Java6 > > >>> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand > that > > this > > >>> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ~john > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > > >>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com > > >>> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd > (T.B.) > > >>> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > > >>> > > >>> Hi Marvin, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from > &
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
This approach makes sense to me. But to my original question, is now a good time to start thinking about straight Java EE 7 support and cutting over to a 2.x mainline? John On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:25 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. > > Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next major version > bump (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of course keep a > ds-1.x maintenance branch even after that for a while. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > > On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek > wrote: > > > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real benefit > for > > us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). > > in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional > > features). > > ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors require > > it... > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) : > > > >> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications can > >> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This > only > >> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to > >> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is > prohibitively > >> expensive without a powerful use case. > >> > >> > >> > >> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal > > shared > >> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on > >> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, and > >> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an enterprise > >> level any open source software that no longer patches and supports > Java6 > >> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand that > this > >> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > >> > >> ~john > >> > >> > >> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > >> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com > >> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd (T.B.) > >> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > >> > >> Hi Marvin, > >> > >> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from > last > >> month here: > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >> > >> The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the > >> Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 > systems > >> were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I > can > >> think of off the top of my head). > >> > >> As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you > > guys > >> find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to > raise > >> them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. > >> > >> John > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll >> <mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: > >> A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of > >> 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to > know > >> how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in > >> calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. > >> > >> _Marvin > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org >> johndam...@apache.org>] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM > >> To: deltaspike > > mailto:dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >> > >> Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 > >> > >> All, > >> > >> I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. > >> > >> There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to > > share > >> them and build out some ideas. > >> > >> 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're > >> going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. > >> > >> 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If > we > >> need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in > when > >> done. > >> > >> The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had > the > >> most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows > >> implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd > > need > >> to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to > > do it > >> thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable > since > >> most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd > > run > >> into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to > >> throw out. > >> > >> John > >> > > >
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
Actually the main reason I brought it up was that we currently cannot guarantee inter-operability with Java 6 any longer. If I look at our CI tests, very few of the tests that actually run against Java 6 environments pass. This page should give a clearer indication of that problem: https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/DeltaSpike/job/DeltaSpike%20for%20CDI%201.0/ John On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM Cody Lerum wrote: > At this point it seems the main driver for dropping Java6 is to > discourage its use. I think there is sufficient discouragement > elsewhere and anyone with active or new projects is working towards or > planning for Java7/8. > > +1 for keeping Java6 until the next major bump. > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Mark Struberg > wrote: > > Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. > > > > Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next major version > bump (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of course keep a > ds-1.x maintenance branch even after that for a while. > > > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek < > gpetra...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real > benefit for > >> us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). > >> in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional > >> features). > >> ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors > require > >> it... > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) : > >> > >>> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications > can > >>> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This > only > >>> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to > >>> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is > prohibitively > >>> expensive without a powerful use case. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal > >> shared > >>> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on > >>> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, and > >>> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an > enterprise > >>> level any open source software that no longer patches and supports > Java6 > >>> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand that > this > >>> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ~john > >>> > >>> > >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > >>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com > >>> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd (T.B.) > >>> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > >>> > >>> Hi Marvin, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from > last > >>> month here: > >>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >>> > >>> The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen > the > >>> Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 > systems > >>> were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I > can > >>> think of off the top of my head). > >>> > >>> As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you > >> guys > >>> find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to > raise > >>> them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. > >>> > >>> John > >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll >>> <mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: > >>> A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of > >>> 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
At this point it seems the main driver for dropping Java6 is to discourage its use. I think there is sufficient discouragement elsewhere and anyone with active or new projects is working towards or planning for Java7/8. +1 for keeping Java6 until the next major bump. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. > > Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next major version bump > (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of course keep a ds-1.x > maintenance branch even after that for a while. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > >> On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek >> wrote: >> > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real benefit for >> us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). >> in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional >> features). >> ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors require >> it... >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >> 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) : >> >>> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications can >>> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This only >>> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to >>> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is prohibitively >>> expensive without a powerful use case. >>> >>> >>> >>> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal >> shared >>> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on >>> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, and >>> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an enterprise >>> level any open source software that no longer patches and supports Java6 >>> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand that this >>> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> ~john >>> >>> >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM >>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com >>> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd (T.B.) >>> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 >>> >>> Hi Marvin, >>> >>> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from last >>> month here: >>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E >>> >>> The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the >>> Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 systems >>> were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I can >>> think of off the top of my head). >>> >>> As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you >> guys >>> find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to raise >>> them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. >>> >>> John >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll >> <mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: >>> A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of >>> 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to know >>> how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in >>> calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. >>> >>> _Marvin >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org>> johndam...@apache.org>] >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM >>> To: deltaspike >> mailto:dev@deltaspike.apache.org >>> >> >>> Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. >>> >>> There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to >> share >>> them and build out some ideas. >>> >>> 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're >>> going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. >>> >>> 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If we >>> need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in when >>> done. >>> >>> The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had the >>> most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows >>> implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd >> need >>> to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to >> do it >>> thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable since >>> most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd >> run >>> into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to >>> throw out. >>> >>> John >>> >>
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
@mark: +1 regards, gerhard 2016-04-07 15:25 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg : > Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. > > Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next major version > bump (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of course keep a > ds-1.x maintenance branch even after that for a while. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > > On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek > wrote: > > > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real benefit > for > > us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). > > in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional > > features). > > ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors require > > it... > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) : > > > >> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications can > >> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This > only > >> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to > >> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is > prohibitively > >> expensive without a powerful use case. > >> > >> > >> > >> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal > > shared > >> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on > >> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, and > >> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an enterprise > >> level any open source software that no longer patches and supports > Java6 > >> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand that > this > >> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > >> > >> ~john > >> > >> > >> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > >> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com > >> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd (T.B.) > >> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > >> > >> Hi Marvin, > >> > >> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from > last > >> month here: > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >> > >> The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the > >> Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 > systems > >> were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I > can > >> think of off the top of my head). > >> > >> As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you > > guys > >> find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to > raise > >> them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. > >> > >> John > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll >> <mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: > >> A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of > >> 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to > know > >> how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in > >> calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. > >> > >> _Marvin > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org >> johndam...@apache.org>] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM > >> To: deltaspike > > mailto:dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >> > >> Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 > >> > >> All, > >> > >> I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. > >> > >> There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to > > share > >> them and build out some ideas. > >> > >> 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're > >> going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. > >> > >> 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If > we > >> need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in > when > >> done. > >> > >> The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had > the > >> most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows > >> implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd > > need > >> to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to > > do it > >> thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable > since > >> most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd > > run > >> into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to > >> throw out. > >> > >> John > >> > > >
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next major version bump (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of course keep a ds-1.x maintenance branch even after that for a while. LieGrue, strub > On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek > wrote: > > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real benefit for > us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). > in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional > features). > ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors require > it... > > regards, > gerhard > > > > > 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) : > >> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications can >> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This only >> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to >> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is prohibitively >> expensive without a powerful use case. >> >> >> >> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal > shared >> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on >> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, and >> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an enterprise >> level any open source software that no longer patches and supports Java6 >> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand that this >> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> ~john >> >> >> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] >> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com >> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd (T.B.) >> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 >> >> Hi Marvin, >> >> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from last >> month here: >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> >> The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the >> Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 systems >> were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I can >> think of off the top of my head). >> >> As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you > guys >> find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to raise >> them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. >> >> John >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll > <mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: >> A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of >> 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to know >> how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in >> calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. >> >> _Marvin >> >> -Original Message- >> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org> johndam...@apache.org>] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM >> To: deltaspike > mailto:dev@deltaspike.apache.org >> >> >> Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 >> >> All, >> >> I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. >> >> There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to > share >> them and build out some ideas. >> >> 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're >> going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. >> >> 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If we >> need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in when >> done. >> >> The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had the >> most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows >> implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd > need >> to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to > do it >> thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable since >> most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd > run >> into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to >> throw out. >> >> John >> >
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real benefit for us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional features). ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors require it... regards, gerhard 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) : > Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications can > use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This only > has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to > procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is prohibitively > expensive without a powerful use case. > > > > Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal shared > farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on > developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, and > unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an enterprise > level any open source software that no longer patches and supports Java6 > due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand that this > makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > > > > Thanks, > > > > ~john > > > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com > Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd (T.B.) > Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > > Hi Marvin, > > Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from last > month here: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the > Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 systems > were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I can > think of off the top of my head). > > As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you guys > find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to raise > them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. > > John > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll <mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: > A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of > 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to know > how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in > calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. > > _Marvin > > -Original Message- > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org johndam...@apache.org>] > Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM > To: deltaspike mailto:dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> > Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 > > All, > > I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. > > There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to share > them and build out some ideas. > > 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're > going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. > > 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If we > need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in when > done. > > The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had the > most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows > implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd need > to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to do it > thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable since > most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd run > into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to > throw out. > > John >
RE: Cutting over to Java 7
Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications can use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This only has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is prohibitively expensive without a powerful use case. Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal shared farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, and unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an enterprise level any open source software that no longer patches and supports Java6 due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand that this makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. Thanks, ~john From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org; marvint...@gtcgroup.com Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd (T.B.) Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 Hi Marvin, Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from last month here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 systems were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I can think of off the top of my head). As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you guys find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to raise them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. John On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll mailto:marvint...@gtcgroup.com>> wrote: A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to know how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. _Marvin -Original Message- From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org<mailto:johndam...@apache.org>] Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM To: deltaspike mailto:dev@deltaspike.apache.org>> Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 All, I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to share them and build out some ideas. 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If we need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in when done. The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had the most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd need to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to do it thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable since most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd run into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to throw out. John
RE: Cutting over to Java 7
Thanks John, Believe me... I've been watching the thread closely. :-) I did not feel compelled to enter in until such time as it was being determined the approach for accommodation of Java 6 users. You may have seen some POC code that is being used for preparation of our eventual move to Java 7 that we thought was going to begin this year??? However, our standard data center offering remains WAS 8 (classic) with Java 6 (at this time). _Marvin -Original Message- From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 7:13 AM Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 Hi Marvin, Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from last month here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 systems were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I can think of off the top of my head). As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you guys find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to raise them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. John On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll wrote: > A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of > 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to > know how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to > begin in calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. > > _Marvin > > -Original Message- > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM > To: deltaspike > Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 > > All, > > I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. > > There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to > share them and build out some ideas. > > 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that > we're going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. > > 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If > we need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back > in when done. > > The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had > the most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and > shows implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as > we'd need to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we > haven't had to do it thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 > would be acceptable since most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a > small chance that we'd run into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if > others have different ideas to throw out. > > John > >
Re: Cutting over to Java 7
Hi Marvin, Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from last month here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 systems were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I can think of off the top of my head). As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you guys find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to raise them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. John On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll wrote: > A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of > 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to know > how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in > calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. > > _Marvin > > -Original Message- > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM > To: deltaspike > Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 > > All, > > I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. > > There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to share > them and build out some ideas. > > 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're > going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. > > 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If we > need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in when > done. > > The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had the > most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows > implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd need > to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to do it > thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable since > most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd run > into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to > throw out. > > John > >
RE: Cutting over to Java 7
A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to know how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. _Marvin -Original Message- From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM To: deltaspike Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 All, I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to share them and build out some ideas. 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If we need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in when done. The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had the most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd need to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to do it thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable since most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd run into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to throw out. John
