On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 12:54, Blake McBride wrote:
> It is my opinion that NetBeans should support JDK 8 for as long as JDK 8 is
> supported. Extended support is provided by Oracle till 2030. Other groups
> (Azul) also support JDK 8 till 2030. It's hard for me to imagine what the
> rush to
Keep using the version of Netbeans you are using. There's no "rush" for
you to upgrade.
That said, however, the "rush" to get off JDK 8 is speed and features. JDK
8 is not capable of many of the current features of JDK 21. To expect the
developers to remain stuck in past decades and to not use
It is my opinion that NetBeans should support JDK 8 for as long as JDK 8 is
supported. Extended support is provided by Oracle till 2030. Other groups
(Azul) also support JDK 8 till 2030. It's hard for me to imagine what the
rush to move off of 8 is.
Blake McBride
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:39
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 16:39, Peter Blemel wrote:
> My only concern with dropping JDK 11 is that JDK 17 made certain policy
> warnings into fatal errors, which stops my platform apps from running.
> Granted, this is a matter of me tracking down all of the issues that JDK 17
> forbids and
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 04:32, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
> The core of my alternative proposal is to move forward and support newer JDKs
> properly, where needed via the "Run on JDK8, use JDK11 APIs!" - http://
> wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/AlternativeImplementation
>
> Are you saying we are using this
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 12:48, Svata Dedic wrote:
> But it requires some degree of cooperation, which seem to be rejected
> upfront.
...
> But again, that assumes some degree of honest cooperation/respect from
> the progressive majority - but given the past communication, throwing
> obstacles in
Hi,
Am Dienstag, dem 11.04.2023 um 11:27 + schrieb Glenn Holmer:
> My hope is that the JDK8 gang will see
> the error of their ways and come back to the fold after losing the vote.
please lets stay civil here.
I think it is clear, that there is disagreement, but that does not
mean, that one
2023 2:15 AM
> > To: dev@netbeans.apache.org (mailto:dev@netbeans.apache.org)
> > mailto:dev@netbeans.apache.org)>
> > Subject: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping
> > JDK 8)
> >
> > Tbh, I'd rather stick with Java8 for now and
On 12.04.23 11:42, Peter Hull wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 09:15, Mark Struberg wrote:
Java11 is not as much used in the industry, it was kind of totally ignored by
some companies and bigger projects. It also imo doesn't bring that much of a
benefit for the code base. Plus the eco system is
From: Mark Struberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 2:15 AM
To: dev@netbeans.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
Tbh, I'd rather stick with Java8 for now and then move to Java 17 at some point
in time.
Java11
On 12.04.23 10:15, Mark Struberg wrote:
Tbh, I'd rather stick with Java8 for now and then move to Java 17 at some point
in time.
you can do that right away. You don't have to take every step on the
migration path.
-mbien
Java11 is not as much used in the industry, it was kind of totally
around that problem
by myself and others.
Peter
From: Mark Struberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 2:15 AM
To: dev@netbeans.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
Tbh, I'd rather stick with Java8 for now
On 12. 04. 23 6:04, László Kishalmi wrote:
Well, your proposal is actually putting additional work both on who wants
to move forward and who wants to support Java 8 runtime. Also how would it
look like wne Java 17, 21 would be the base? I would like to avoid having
codes in the ide like this
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 09:15, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Java11 is not as much used in the industry, it was kind of totally ignored by
> some companies and bigger projects. It also imo doesn't bring that much of a
> benefit for the code base. Plus the eco system is rather slowly moving. There
>
Could it be a solution to continue Java 8 on a branch and then, if
that works, i.e., if the work that needs to be done is actually done
there, we bring it back into the main repo -- i.e., we put it on a
sidetrack for one release, to see if this lightens the burden for
those who have felt
Tbh, I'd rather stick with Java8 for now and then move to Java 17 at some point
in time.
Java11 is not as much used in the industry, it was kind of totally ignored by
some companies and bigger projects. It also imo doesn't bring that much of a
benefit for the code base. Plus the eco system is
Well, your proposal is actually putting additional work both on who wants
to move forward and who wants to support Java 8 runtime. Also how would it
look like wne Java 17, 21 would be the base? I would like to avoid having
codes in the ide like this one:
> With all due respect, that's not an "alternative". It took me two
I believe my proposal is a real alternative and it is a way to move us forward
while not giving up on what makes NetBeans Platform unique - while not giving
up on backward compatibility.
> reads to distinguish it from the
Yes, they're loading a ton of org.netbeans.modules.cnd modules, which
may be keeping them on older versions of NetBeans Platform, meaning
that they can't move to later JDKs anyway.
Gj
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 2:19 PM Neil C Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 13:07, Geertjan Wielenga
>
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 13:07, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> INFO [org.netbeans.core.startup.NbEvents]: Turning on modules:
> org.openide.util.lookup [8.25.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
Thanks. Old style spec versions (although more recently compiled!)
So that module is currently 8.54. I think it was
INFO [org.netbeans.core.startup.NbEvents]: Turning on modules:
org.openide.util.lookup [8.25.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
org.openide.util [8.39.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
org.openide.modules [7.43.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
org.netbeans.api.annotations.common/1 [1.24.1 20221005-cd0c929e4999]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 12:43, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> To Karl's question -- the cool new look and feels are not included in
> the latest Microchip MPLAB X IDE, so it's quite an old version of the
> NetBeans Platform, ...
Not necessarily. You have to actively opt in to those. I implemented
I'd say those that are arguing for JDK 8 are representing the
traditional NetBeans focus on compatibility and supporting the full
range of Java LTS versions.
However, unless they step in to actively work on that with others,
that is not sustainable given the sheer number and pace of Java
releases
On 4/11/23 05:55, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> Well, what we're trying to do here is keep the whole project together
> and not branch, which comes down to forking.
When there's an irreconcilable argument about the direction of a
project, it's the only solution. My hope is that the JDK8 gang will
Can you see in the installed MPLAB app what NetBeans Platform version
they use?
Karl
On 11.04.2023 13:02, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
I download and installed MPLAB X IDE by Microchip today, probably one
of the most widely used NetBeans Platform applications, where I see
this:
Product Version:
I download and installed MPLAB X IDE by Microchip today, probably one
of the most widely used NetBeans Platform applications, where I see
this:
Product Version: MPLAB X IDE v6.05
Updates: Updates available
Java: 1.8.0_345; OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 25.345-b01
Runtime: OpenJDK Runtime Environment
Well, what we're trying to do here is keep the whole project together
and not branch, which comes down to forking.
Gj
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:19 PM Glenn Holmer
wrote:
>
> On 4/10/23 10:19, László Kishalmi wrote:
> > There is a way to support old software, and that is called branching.
> >
On 4/10/23 10:19, László Kishalmi wrote:
> There is a way to support old software, and that is called branching.
> It is that simple.
If the JDK8 gang had the courage of their convictions, they'd have
forked by now instead of pulling the whole project down. They could call
it DeadBeans.
--
Glenn
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 07:41, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> Could a consensus solution be that for all JDK 8 - compatibility
> related items, any/all work related to that, we assign those issues to
> Svata -- and we try this for one release and see how that goes? If it
> fails, then in the release
Hi all,
Could a consensus solution be that for all JDK 8 - compatibility
related items, any/all work related to that, we assign those issues to
Svata -- and we try this for one release and see how that goes? If it
fails, then in the release after that, we should all then have
consensus to move
On 10.04.23 06:20, Michael Bien wrote:
Don't let maven distract us here, I only kept mentioning it since that
was the area I have been working on. The whole java ecosystem moves
on: Jetty, Jakarta EE, Spring, Jenkins, Maven, Lucene, (...)
Since I just read the news in my RSS reader:
ecj,
On 10.04.23 12:45, Neil C Smith wrote:
Seriously, we're left with vote this week (maybe with amendment) or
punt the decision for another 3 months to happen with NB20. I'm
curious what people who've +1'd this so far would prefer to do after
taking into account your points / suggestions? I
Well, there is no hatred here, it is a heated debate.
It's just beyond my understanding that people with 20+ years of software
development experience don't see branching as a viable option.
It seems we could not have convinced some of us on our proposal, that's sad.
I'm getting tired of this
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 1:41 PM Svata Dedic
wrote:
> On 10. 04. 23 19:35, Scott Palmer wrote:
> > Note that the one example we have been given so far of "Microchip IDE",
> if
> > it is what I think it is "MPLAB X IDE" (
> > https://www.microchip.com/en-us/tools-resources/develop/mplab-x-ide),
>
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, 17:45 Jaroslav Tulach,
wrote:
> Thank you Sváťa for writing this email. It open another "can of worms" in
> the "lazy consensus" thread - in my opinion clearly rendering the "lazy
> consensus" as obsolete.
>
In Apache projects, "consensus" means *widespread agreement among
On 10. 04. 23 19:35, Scott Palmer wrote:
Note that the one example we have been given so far of "Microchip IDE", if
it is what I think it is "MPLAB X IDE" (
https://www.microchip.com/en-us/tools-resources/develop/mplab-x-ide), then
it seems to have Windows 10, Ubuntu 16.04, macOs 10.15 as
Just to be clear, there is no "hate" on my part. I know the "tone" is hard
to communicate via email. I just disagree that Java 8 support should
continue in the main codebase.
When I suggest that a Java 8 compatible fork is how to proceed, I wish you
all the best of success with it. If you have
Hi,
So are these "hundreds of people" Oracle customers, Toni customers, both
Oracle and Toni customers or any other kind of users, say open source
projects?
Thanks,
Antonio
On 8/4/23 14:04, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
You have met hundreds of people using NetBeans Platform in your career (more
On 10.04.23 18:34, John Neffenger wrote:
On 4/10/23 5:08 AM, Svata Dedic wrote:
I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had presentation a long
time ago
What is actually the JDK 8 exit strategy of those who vetoed? Since so
far none was given.
options:
a) there is none, the NetBeans project ends when JDK 8 ends (or before
that; this would explain frgaal etc)
b) NetBeans waits until JDK 8 ends, and is then migrated in big bang
fashion to JDK
Thank you Sváťa for writing this email. It open another "can of worms" in
the "lazy consensus" thread - in my opinion clearly rendering the "lazy
consensus" as obsolete.
I still need a bit of time to think about using your email strategically,
but in any case I'm happy. I am no longer the only
If Jaroslav, Svata, and Toni will take ownership of and be responsible
for ALL items that relate to handling JDK 8 related incompatibilities
and any other issues connected to this, then we may be able to solve
this problem.
I perceive little faith in that this will be done, since this has thus
On 4/10/23 5:08 AM, Svata Dedic wrote:
I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had presentation a long
time ago (but that still IMHO lives), and possibly
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 7:26 AM Karl Tauber wrote:
> +1
>
> On 10.04.2023 14:08, Svata Dedic wrote:
> > I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
> > Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
> > Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had
+1
On 10.04.2023 14:08, Svata Dedic wrote:
I am advocating not to drop JDK8 as runtime for NetBeans (extended)
Platform, as that decision affects NetBeans-based applications.
Microchip IDE, that mining analytic stuff we had presentation a long
time ago (but that still IMHO lives), and
One strand that comes through in this discussion is that those that want to
continue JDK 8 should also be the owners of it.
It is clear that a level of exhaustion is being reached by the majority of
the core contributors of this project.
A bigger risk than us losing the ability to run projects
As far as basing decisions on actual data goes, I agree completely. Do we have
any data on how many users would be affected by dropping JDK 8 support in
future NetBeans versions? I’m talking real numbers here, not a few people
stating, “I would like it to run on Java 8”.
That is:
- How many
Hi,
Am Montag, dem 10.04.2023 um 13:02 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
> My feeling on this discussion is that, yes, it’s unfortunate that we’re
> getting to fruitful discussion only at this late stage — but better late
> than never and without this useful thread we wouldn’t have been getting
>
On 10. 04. 23 5:40, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
It is also being said that "The IDE will continue to support users
developing projects for/with JDK 8, for as long as nb-javac and other
dependencies allow." . I think the team would understand if we keep our
Gradle Tooling library on JDK8 level for
My feeling on this discussion is that, yes, it’s unfortunate that we’re
getting to fruitful discussion only at this late stage — but better late
than never and without this useful thread we wouldn’t have been getting
where we’re getting at all.
Could one way forward be to do a Zoom call with all
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 at 00:16, Svata Dedic wrote:
> Please remember that the published proposal not only covered JDK8's
> fate, which we argue about right now, but also the idea to drop JDK11 in
> 2024. So take my
>
> * -1 (at the moment) for JDK8 phase out with NB19;
> * and ANOTHER -1 to the
On 10.04.23 06:20, Michael Bien wrote:
Hi Svata,
thanks for your detailed response, my reply is inline
On 10.04.23 01:16, Svata Dedic wrote:
I would also (now) ask to restrict from advocating language goodies
agreed. This whole discussion is almost exclusively about APIs and
bytecode
Hi Svata,
thanks for your detailed response, my reply is inline
On 10.04.23 01:16, Svata Dedic wrote:
I would also (now) ask to restrict from advocating language goodies
agreed. This whole discussion is almost exclusively about APIs and
bytecode levels. Language features come just as side
Dear Svata,
First of all, I would like you thank you for offering work to support
keep JDK8 alive!
Though reading through your mail, I'd wonder how JDK was able to evolve
beyond Java 8 it had 80+ percent usage in 2018.
The secret is that they forked/branched JDK. As you mentioned there
Please remember that the published proposal not only covered JDK8's
fate, which we argue about right now, but also the idea to drop JDK11 in
2024. So take my
* -1 (at the moment) for JDK8 phase out with NB19;
* and ANOTHER -1 to the JDK11 plans as presented in this thread (but
that should be
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 at 13:05, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
> ...is going to break the promise me, you
> and the NetBeans team was giving NetBeans Platform users since 1997!
Aside from wondering how dropping JDK 7 support was not breaking the
same promise, my message to Toni would be roughly the same as
Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:25 PM toni.ep...@eppleton.de <
> >
> > toni.ep...@eppleton.de> wrote:
> > > -1
> > >
> > > I agree with Jarda. Having the portability for platforms like Android
> is
> > > important, and I support the proposed alternativ
ike Android is
> > important, and I support the proposed alternative.
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Jaroslav Tulach
> > Datum: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 um 17:13
> > An: dev
> > Betreff: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping
>
13
> An: dev
> Betreff: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK
> 8) -1
>
> Background: http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/Portability
>
>
> Alternative:
>
> - I will maintain what ever needs to be maintained to keep JDK 8 CI tests
> r
+1
Reading Neil's proposal carefully it seems like a reasonable/practical way
ahead. Sooner or later everybody will have to move forward and we need to
see how we can move on while supporting older Java versions where needed.
Just keep in mind that not all industries move as fast and it isn't
+1
On 3/4/23 11:38, Neil C Smith wrote:
Thanks, Neil
Thank you, Neil, for a reasonable proposal.
It's great to try to support the oldest JDKs possible, but that doesn't
mean we have to live stuck in the past forever.
The proposal to use NB18 release branch for backports makes sense to me,
the proposed alternative.
Von: Jaroslav Tulach
Datum: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 um 17:13
An: dev
Betreff: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
-1
Background: http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/Portability
Alternative:
- I will maintain what ever needs to be maintained
On 05.04.23 17:13, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
-1
Background: http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/Portability
Alternative:
- I will maintain what ever needs to be maintained to keep JDK 8 CI tests
running
this is like offering to water a plastic flower while leaving the real
flowers around it dry.
+1 Sounds like a reasonable proposal.
Best Regards,
Christian
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:26 AM Neil C Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 17:25, toni.ep...@eppleton.de
> wrote:
> > Having the portability for platforms like Android is important, ...
>
> Did you read the proposal in full?!
>
> I
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 17:25, toni.ep...@eppleton.de
wrote:
> Having the portability for platforms like Android is important, ...
Did you read the proposal in full?!
I know some of those currently actively working on the NetBeans
codebase have expressed some bafflement at this, given we neither
ava 8 is also LTS and many out there are still stuck to it. I support
> > >> Jarda, too.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:25 PM toni.ep...@eppleton.de <
> > >> toni.ep...@eppleton.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 16:13, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
> Alternative:
>
> - I will maintain what ever needs to be maintained to keep JDK 8 CI tests
> running
>
> - From Apache NetBeans 19, the minimum JDK required to build and run
> the IDE will be JDK 11.
>
> - The minimum JDK to run and test the
..@eppleton.de <
> >> toni.ep...@eppleton.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> -1
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Jarda. Having the portability for platforms like Android
> is
> >>> important, and I support the proposed alternative.
> >&
upport the proposed alternative.
Von: Jaroslav Tulach
Datum: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 um 17:13
An: dev
Betreff: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping
JDK 8)
-1
Background: http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/Portability
Alternative:
- I will maintain what ever needs to be main
> important, and I support the proposed alternative.
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Jaroslav Tulach
> > Datum: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 um 17:13
> > An: dev
> > Betreff: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping
> > JDK 8)
> > -1
>
>
>> -1
>>
>> I agree with Jarda. Having the portability for platforms like Android is
>> important, and I support the proposed alternative.
>>
>>
>>
>> Von: Jaroslav Tulach
>> Datum: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 um 17:13
>> An: dev
>
pport the proposed alternative.
>
>
>
> Von: Jaroslav Tulach
> Datum: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 um 17:13
> An: dev
> Betreff: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping
> JDK 8)
> -1
>
> Background: http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/Portability
>
-1
I agree with Jarda. Having the portability for platforms like Android is
important, and I support the proposed alternative.
Von: Jaroslav Tulach
Datum: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 um 17:13
An: dev
Betreff: Re: [Lazy Consensus] Minimum JDK build and run policy (dropping JDK 8)
-1
Background
+1
Am Montag, dem 03.04.2023 um 10:38 +0100 schrieb Neil C Smith:
> As mentioned elsewhere, I'm kicking off a process to bring this issue
> to a decision. For various reasons, having a decision before we
> branch off NB18 is desirable. I've drawn up a draft proposal (below)
> that tries to
-1
Background: http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/Portability
Alternative:
- I will maintain what ever needs to be maintained to keep JDK 8 CI tests
running
- From Apache NetBeans 19, the minimum JDK required to build and run
the IDE will be JDK 11.
- The minimum JDK to run and test the
+1
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 7:36 PM Brad Walker wrote:
> +1
>
> -brad w.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:39 AM Neil C Smith wrote:
>
> > As mentioned elsewhere, I'm kicking off a process to bring this issue
> > to a decision. For various reasons, having a decision before we
> > branch off NB18
+1
-brad w.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:39 AM Neil C Smith wrote:
> As mentioned elsewhere, I'm kicking off a process to bring this issue
> to a decision. For various reasons, having a decision before we
> branch off NB18 is desirable. I've drawn up a draft proposal (below)
> that tries to
On 4/3/23 04:38, Neil C Smith wrote:
>
> # Proposed policy
>
> * Apache NetBeans 18 will be the last release to support running the
> platform on JDK 8.
+1, well thought out.
--
Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682)
"After the vintage season came the aftermath -- and Cenbe."
+1 from me for the proposal.
On 4/3/23 2:38 AM, Neil C Smith wrote:
Three JDKs will be supported at any one time - the current JDK, plus
the previous two LTS releases. eg. NetBeans 20 and 21 (Nov 2023 / Feb
2024) will support JDK 11, 17 and 21. NetBeans 22 (May 2024) will
support JDK 17, 21 and
+1 from my side!
very well thought out proposal in my opinion.
The LTS-1 model is also easy to communicate and to understand which has
some benefits in itself.
Further, the option to branch a NetBeans LTS release if there is such
demand should cover all eventualities. I agree that we
should
As mentioned elsewhere, I'm kicking off a process to bring this issue
to a decision. For various reasons, having a decision before we
branch off NB18 is desirable. I've drawn up a draft proposal (below)
that tries to encompass most of what has been expressed, and hopefully
achieves that - thanks
81 matches
Mail list logo
