> On Mar 12, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ralph,
>>
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:56:32 -0700 Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, you really do need to use a multi-release jar to include a
>>> module-info class file.
> On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:56:32 -0700 Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 2:47 AM, Stephen Colebourne
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) Moving to Java 9 as a base would be a terrible choice. Java 9 is a
>>> six-month release whi
Hi Ralph,
On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:56:32 -0700 Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 2:47 AM, Stephen Colebourne
>> wrote:
>>
>> 1) Moving to Java 9 as a base would be a terrible choice. Java 9 is a
>> six-month release which is about to be replaced by Java 10, which will
>> then be replaced b
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Gilles
> wrote:
>> Then these modules can define "module-info" files, and an actual build will
>> prove that the dependencies are as expected.
>>
> As Ralph as pointed out, you cannot generate a module-info f
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:09:22 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:01 AM, ajs6f wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Gilles
>>> wrote:
>>> > Would it be useful (and interesting as part of GSoC work) to
>>> > establish
>>>
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:21 AM, ajs6f wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
> >
> > That's all quite nice but the hard reality is that the tool chains out
> > there are simply not ready for JPMS, as I've painfully learned
> contributing
> > to Log4j 2. MR Jars, module-
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:09:22 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:01 AM, ajs6f wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> Would it be useful (and interesting as part of GSoC work) to
> establish
> (1) which tools requires fixing,
> (2) prepare enhancement requests fo
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> That's all quite nice but the hard reality is that the tool chains out
> there are simply not ready for JPMS, as I've painfully learned contributing
> to Log4j 2. MR Jars, module-infos, all of that breaks Maven plugins and
> tools left and r
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:01 AM, ajs6f wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
> > Would it be useful (and interesting as part of GSoC work) to
> > establish
> > (1) which tools requires fixing,
> > (2) prepare enhancement requests for the respective projects,
> > and in the meantim
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
> Would it be useful (and interesting as part of GSoC work) to
> establish
> (1) which tools requires fixing,
> (2) prepare enhancement requests for the respective projects,
> and in the meantime, adapt the "Commons" build (with a "JDK 9"
> profile)
> (3
Log4j has run into a few of them. The OSGi bind tool has some issues although
the latest release fixes some of them. Android’s tools have problems with any
jar that contains anything Java 9 related. We have created issues against both
of these.
Ralph
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Gilles wrot
Hello.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 22:21:44 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 7 March 2018 at 18:56, Ralph Goers
wrote:
Actually, you really do need to use a multi-release jar to include a
module-info class file. Otherwise it may be sitting alongside of
classes compiled for an earlier java release a
On 7 March 2018 at 18:56, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Actually, you really do need to use a multi-release jar to include a
> module-info class file. Otherwise it may be sitting alongside of classes
> compiled for an earlier java release and various tools will fail because of
> it.
Then those tools ne
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 2:47 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> 1) Moving to Java 9 as a base would be a terrible choice. Java 9 is a
> six-month release which is about to be replaced by Java 10, which will
> then be replaced by Java 11. Thus, Java 8 is the only sensible
> baseline right now.
>
>
Hi.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:47:00 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
1) Moving to Java 9 as a base would be a terrible choice. Java 9 is a
six-month release which is about to be replaced by Java 10, which
will
then be replaced by Java 11. Thus, Java 8 is the only sensible
baseline right now.
May
1) Moving to Java 9 as a base would be a terrible choice. Java 9 is a
six-month release which is about to be replaced by Java 10, which will
then be replaced by Java 11. Thus, Java 8 is the only sensible
baseline right now.
2) Compiling a single jar file such that it works on Java 8 but has a
modu
Hi All:
On a slightly different tack, I think that it is way to early to require
Java 9 for ANY Commons components.
I see a case for updating all components to at least Java 7, and hopefully
8.
What you will likely hear from some quarters are comments of the type "What
feature of Java X is requi
Dear all,
As an idea for GSoC that came up in [1], we want to settle some guidelines
that other commons projects might follow to make the shift. We came up with
some ideas in [2]. I wanted to ask about some experience you have had while
moving to JDK 9 in other commons-projects.
I wanted to propo
18 matches
Mail list logo
