Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

> Which Platform users need JDK 8 support and why can't they just stay on > (for example) NetBeans 17? I'm also a platform and IDE user. We moved our platform apps to JDK 11 back in 2021. As others have pointed out, if someone needs JDK 8 compatibility they can use an older version of the

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 at 15:49, Matthias Bläsing wrote: > Am Sonntag, dem 02.04.2023 um 15:38 +0200 schrieb Jaroslav Tulach: > > > It also becomes increasingly difficult to > > > motivate myself to fix JDK 8 issues in my freetime. > > > > I can imagine that. However we are not coding NetBeans to

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 4/2/23 06:38, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: I can imagine that. However we are not coding NetBeans to please ourselves, but to please our users. NetBeans Platform users need JDK8 support. That's why I am volunteering to maintain and run the CI & tests on JDK8. Well, that's not true. I'm in the

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

+1 > > No, it's keeping ancient code that works kludged into a system that > desperately wants to move on. > The one line "if" isn't the problem, it's making sure the code in the body > of that if and the code in the "else" coexisting without problems. > > Let's face it, the "code that already

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 9:38 AM Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > > >> https://github.com/apache/netbeans/issues/4904 > > >> > > >> see also 'priority:high' label for more, > > > > > > The issue says "Many tests fail on JDK 11" - how does that compare to > JDK > > > 8? > > well. You mostly see this while

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Hi Jaroslav, Am Sonntag, dem 02.04.2023 um 15:38 +0200 schrieb Jaroslav Tulach: > > It also becomes increasingly difficult to > > motivate myself to fix JDK 8 issues in my freetime. > > I can imagine that. However we are not coding NetBeans to please ourselves, > but to please our users.

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

> >> https://github.com/apache/netbeans/issues/4904 > >> > >> see also 'priority:high' label for more, > > > > The issue says "Many tests fail on JDK 11" - how does that compare to JDK > > 8? > well. You mostly see this while trying to fix them. It always requires > extra work to keep supporting

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 23:54, rangi.k...@siemens.com wrote: > I am in favor of an LTS-1 policy. It allows us to adopt (somewhat) recent > additions to the language while still supporting some older environments. > Given that with the new release roadmap we will see a new LTS release every >

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

I am in favor of an LTS-1 policy. It allows us to adopt (somewhat) recent additions to the language while still supporting some older environments. Given that with the new release roadmap we will see a new LTS release

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 08:51, Michael Bien wrote: > With every new JDK release it will become more difficult to keep > supporting JDK 8 as runtime. It also becomes increasingly difficult to > motivate myself to fix JDK 8 issues in my freetime. If I see PRs which > fix edge cases in java-version

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

Some minimum JDK level needs to be specified. While this is basically arbitrary based on the needs of the platform and work required to support it, I think it makes sense that the minimum should be some LTS version. To get the widest audience would suggest that version should be the oldest LTS

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

Hi Neil, Am Donnerstag, dem 16.03.2023 um 11:23 + schrieb Neil C Smith: > Hi Matthias, > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 at 22:22, Neil C Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, 19:11 Matthias Bläsing, > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Am Freitag, dem 10.02.2023 um 10:12 + schrieb Neil C

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 at 11:46, Svata Dedic wrote: > I see the rapid movement between > JDK versions that is even increasing with increased frequency of JDK > releases (with only limited features that make a real difference for NB > development) as dangerous But also a reality we don't control,

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

Speaking for myself personally: I'd like to step in the discussion, as I see the rapid movement between JDK versions that is even increasing with increased frequency of JDK releases (with only limited features that make a real difference for NB development) as dangerous - but I still lag

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

Hi Matthias, On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 at 22:22, Neil C Smith wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, 19:11 Matthias Bläsing, > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Am Freitag, dem 10.02.2023 um 10:12 + schrieb Neil C Smith: >> > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 19:02, Matthias Bläsing >> > wrote: >> > > - commit to make

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 2/13/23 21:28, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: > Java 8 is becoming a dead weight on this project. +1 > Help me understand, that those projects which are stuck on Java 8 for > whatever reason, why can't stuck on a specific NetBeans version as well? To me, that's the crux of the problem. If you need

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

> On Feb 13, 2023, at 7:38 PM, James Gosling wrote: > > So…. In my opinion, JDK8 must die. +1000, I cringe every time I see one of our VM engineers “back-port” a new feature!!! GCToolKit is at 11, pinned by users for the moment but I compile and test with 17 and 20. > Anyone using

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 13.02.23 20:06, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: Thank you for the pointers Michael. This means we need either 1) a volunteer who would like to spend time and fix JDK 8 tests, OK, tell me what to do. as recap: this thread was started to notify that a JDK 8 issue was blocking a fairly big Jakarta

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 14.02.23 05:11, Ernie Rael wrote: On 23/02/05 11:31 AM, Michael Bien wrote: NB 16/17 ships nb-javac which is based on JDK 19. Which means the minimum bytecode level is 7 already. Once nb-javac updates to 20 that number would be 8. (JDK 14 dropped support for 6, 20 dropped support for 7,

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 23/02/05 11:31 AM, Michael Bien wrote: NB 16/17 ships nb-javac which is based on JDK 19. Which means the minimum bytecode level is 7 already. Once nb-javac updates to 20 that number would be 8. (JDK 14 dropped support for 6, 20 dropped support for 7, The link Neil gave

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

So…. In my opinion, JDK8 must die. Anyone using Android is in their own special hell, so I tend to not worry about them much (mostly spoken as one who has emerged from being connected with a project that attempted to work with Android, but OMG…). If it were me, I’d skip forward to the latest

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

What is happening with people in 2023? Attempted bribery (another topic), threatening veto-s and supporters... With all my respect, Jarda, please don't act like this! We are talking and trying to find a solution to a problem: Java 8 is becoming a dead weight on this project. That's a fact,

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 19:26, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > As you probably know, I am not participating in day-to-day development of > NetBeans. And for those of use who are more involved day-to-day, it's causing issues, and creating work (including the issue that kicked off this thread). That one

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Hi, Am Montag, dem 13.02.2023 um 20:25 +0100 schrieb Jaroslav Tulach: > I am voting against dropping support for JDK 8. I don't understand you: JDK 8 is a dead end. There will be no new features. So why do you expect new features from your libraries? Just use lookup/collections/whatever from

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

(Apologies if you see this twice. First sent this 3 hours ago. It was not delivered to me; anyone?) As Neil says The question is whether it is worth it? And Scott An informed decision needs to be based on these details.  Holding back for JDK 8 compatibility helps no one if there isn't

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Thank you for your reply Neil. > > > I hope everyone recovered from the last JDK 8 thread and is ready for > > > the first JDK 8 thread of 2023 :) > > > > Nobody recovers from these threads with you guys without wounds. > > > > -1 (I mean veto) on dropping JDK 8 support. > > If this were a

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Thank you for the pointers Michael. > >> This means we need either 1) a volunteer who would like to spend time > >> and fix JDK 8 tests, > > > > OK, tell me what to do. > > as recap: > > this thread was started to notify that a JDK 8 issue was blocking a > fairly big Jakarta EE PR (#4692)

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

As Neil says The question is whether it is worth it? And Scott An informed decision needs to be based on these details. Holding back for JDK 8 compatibility helps no one if there isn't actually any real demand to do so. AFAICT, there's no stats on JDK version and NBP projects. Maybe the

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

While I appreciate Jaroslav's point about libraries being compatible with a wide variety of Java versions, we do have to balance that with keeping up with recent developments and the extra effort it entails to avoid using modern features that are otherwise available. I personally don't see an

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, 19:11 Matthias Bläsing, wrote: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, dem 10.02.2023 um 10:12 + schrieb Neil C Smith: > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 19:02, Matthias Bläsing > > > wrote: > > > - commit to make NetBeans runnable on JDK LTS -1 > > > - build with JDK LTS -1 > > > - be able to

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

Hi, Am Freitag, dem 10.02.2023 um 10:12 + schrieb Neil C Smith: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 19:02, Matthias Bläsing > wrote: > > - commit to make NetBeans runnable on JDK LTS -1 > > - build with JDK LTS -1 > > - be able to be build with the current JDK > > +1 as long as that includes the

Re: Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 19:02, Matthias Bläsing wrote: > - commit to make NetBeans runnable on JDK LTS -1 > - build with JDK LTS -1 > - be able to be build with the current JDK +1 as long as that includes the platform. That is what I suggested in the other thread (I don't see why we need multiple

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 02:31, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > > Dne úterý 10. ledna 2023 15:16:35 CET, Michael Bien napsal(a): > > Hello devs, > > > > I hope everyone recovered from the last JDK 8 thread and is ready for > > the first JDK 8 thread of 2023 :) > > Nobody recovers from these threads with

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 10.02.23 03:30, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: Dne úterý 10. ledna 2023 15:16:35 CET, Michael Bien napsal(a): Hello devs, I hope everyone recovered from the last JDK 8 thread and is ready for the first JDK 8 thread of 2023 :) Nobody recovers from these threads with you guys without wounds. -1 (I

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Dne úterý 10. ledna 2023 15:16:35 CET, Michael Bien napsal(a): > Hello devs, > > I hope everyone recovered from the last JDK 8 thread and is ready for > the first JDK 8 thread of 2023 :) Nobody recovers from these threads with you guys without wounds. -1 (I mean veto) on dropping JDK 8 support.

Compatibility with JDK 8: Shift work to people wanting it (was: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition))

Hi, from my POV it is a fact, that NetBeans (the IDE) can't be required to be runnable on JDK 8 and in fact it is not. So my idea: - commit to make NetBeans runnable on JDK LTS -1 - build with JDK LTS -1 - be able to be build with the current JDK - allow modules to depend on libraries, that

RE: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

AM To: Michael Bien Cc: dev Subject: Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition) On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, 04:52 Michael Bien, wrote: > On 08.02.23 02:54, Neil C Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 21:39, Michael Bien wrote: > >> However, I got the feeling, sooner or later som

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, 04:52 Michael Bien, wrote: > On 08.02.23 02:54, Neil C Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 21:39, Michael Bien wrote: > >> However, I got the feeling, sooner or later someone will want to have > >> the platform again at a lower bytecode level than the rest of the IDE. >

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 08.02.23 02:54, Neil C Smith wrote: On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 21:39, Michael Bien wrote: However, I got the feeling, sooner or later someone will want to have the platform again at a lower bytecode level than the rest of the IDE. I hope I am wrong and this never happens again. If this happens

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 21:39, Michael Bien wrote: > However, I got the feeling, sooner or later someone will want to have > the platform again at a lower bytecode level than the rest of the IDE. > I hope I am wrong and this never happens again. If this happens we can > deal with this later, this

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

just to clarify: - I am for moving to 11 asap, and once we are there, to the next LTS as soon it makes sense (tests have to work etc). - I am for keeping everything in sync if possible since I am a big fan of keeping things simple. However, I got the feeling, sooner or later someone will

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 00:46, Michael Bien wrote: > there is no default configuration for source/target yet - that was just > an idea. I thought that was covered by this? https://github.com/apache/netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/default.xml#L126 > again: if we can do everything in one go -> even

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

I have data on the Snap releases. I know it is highly non representative and due to the auto update nature of Snaps it is really in favor of latest stable so: Rounding on hundreds: out of 33600 installs 32800 is using NetBeans 16, 200 NetBeans 15, 200 NetBeans 17-rc2, 200 NetBeans 12.0 and

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 07.02.23 02:57, Ernie Rael wrote: On 23/02/05 7:52 AM, Neil C Smith wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 11:03, Neil C Smith wrote: Yes, the sooner we can update what was agreed for NB13, the better. But that requires notice (so not NB17, and possibly not NB18), a new lazy consensus proposal, and

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 23/02/05 7:52 AM, Neil C Smith wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 11:03, Neil C Smith wrote: Yes, the sooner we can update what was agreed for NB13, the better. But that requires notice (so not NB17, and possibly not NB18), a new lazy consensus proposal, and no vetoes! Let's talk some more

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 07.02.23 00:43, Neil C Smith wrote: On Mon, 6 Feb 2023, 22:22 Michael Bien, wrote: What is needed is to communicate that it is ok to upgrade everything to JDK11 - which would open the flood gates. Maybe. But do we really want a flood of modules with non-default configuration? there is no

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023, 22:22 Michael Bien, wrote: > What is needed is to communicate that it is ok to upgrade everything to > JDK11 - which would open the flood gates. > Maybe. But do we really want a flood of modules with non-default configuration? > The policy was as far as I remember to be ok

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 06.02.23 21:23, Neil C Smith wrote: On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 at 19:12, Michael Bien wrote: would be great. The JDK 8 -> 11 step is in many ways "special" since so much changed between those two LTS releases. Well, yes, otherwise we might have done this some time ago! :-) I don't think we have

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 at 19:12, Michael Bien wrote: > would be great. The JDK 8 -> 11 step is in many ways "special" since so > much changed between those two LTS releases. Well, yes, otherwise we might have done this some time ago! :-) > I don't think we have to move everything to JDK 11 at once

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 2/5/23 10:56, Neil C Smith wrote: On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 at 17:28, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: I've read this at least 4 times, now I hope I understand the most of it. I'm one of the weaker minds... Or I'm one of the too verbose ones! :-) Thanks for your comments - some responses inline, mainly

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 05.02.23 20:31, Michael Bien wrote: On 05.02.23 18:28, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: Dear Neil, I've read this at least 4 times, now I hope I understand the most of it. I'm one of the weaker minds... We are/can talking about different topics when we mention JDK Support. 1. Java IDE Source

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 05.02.23 18:28, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: Dear Neil, I've read this at least 4 times, now I hope I understand the most of it. I'm one of the weaker minds... We are/can talking about different topics when we mention JDK Support. 1. Java IDE Source Editing Support, I know this is not what we

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 05.02.23 16:52, Neil C Smith wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 11:03, Neil C Smith wrote: Yes, the sooner we can update what was agreed for NB13, the better. But that requires notice (so not NB17, and possibly not NB18), a new lazy consensus proposal, and no vetoes! Let's talk some more about

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 at 17:28, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: > I've read this at least 4 times, now I hope I understand the most of it. > I'm one of the weaker minds... Or I'm one of the too verbose ones! :-) Thanks for your comments - some responses inline, mainly clarifications. > We are/can talking

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Dear Neil, I've read this at least 4 times, now I hope I understand the most of it. I'm one of the weaker minds... We are/can talking about different topics when we mention JDK Support. 1. Java IDE Source Editing Support, I know this is not what we are talking about here, but when people

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 11:03, Neil C Smith wrote: > Yes, the sooner we can update what was agreed for NB13, the better. > But that requires notice (so not NB17, and possibly not NB18), a new > lazy consensus proposal, and no vetoes! Let's talk some more about JDK 8 ... and JDK 11 for that

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Hi, Re VSNetBeans. It can be built and used on JDK11 and higher there is no problem with leaving JDK8 for VSIX. Re tests it is as stated below, many NetBeans tests are still JDK8 and cannot be just turned off. Martin > On 11. 1. 2023, at 6:16, Michael Bien wrote: > > Hi Laszlo, > > The

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 11.01.23 12:03, Neil C Smith wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 19:28, László Kishalmi wrote: Well, I think we can remove the CV for Java 8. Probably the only Java 8 thing we shall do is make sure that the platform sources can be compiled and tested on Java 8. As and until we replace the (as we

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 19:28, László Kishalmi wrote: > Well, I think we can remove the CV for Java 8. > Probably the only Java 8 thing we shall do is make sure that the platform > sources can be compiled and tested on Java 8. As and until we replace the (as we both said, conservative!) step

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Hi Laszlo, The platform tests have 90% of the testing done on JDK 8, there are only a few tests which are repeated again on 11 at the end of the jobs. Right now "Platform Modules batch1" is building platform-src.zip in isolation on JDK 11, not on 8, since 11 is currently the build requirement

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:21 AM Michael Bien wrote: > > The commit validation job is currently testing on 8, 11, 17 and 20-ea. > It doesn't like NetBeans editor modules which require java 11 though > which blocks a Jakarta EE 10 PR atm (#4692). > > This means we need either 1) a volunteer who

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

Well, I think we can remove the CV for Java 8. Probably the only Java 8 thing we shall do is make sure that the platform sources can be compiled and tested on Java 8. On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 7:28 AM Michael Bien wrote: > On 10.01.23 16:25, Ernie Rael wrote: > > On 23/01/10 6:16 AM, Michael

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 10.01.23 16:25, Ernie Rael wrote: On 23/01/10 6:16 AM, Michael Bien wrote: Given that NB doesn't really support running on JDK 11 since a while I would simply opt for 2) and merge. Typo? JDK-11 --> JDK-8 yes, thanks for spotting this! -mbien -ernie

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On 23/01/10 6:16 AM, Michael Bien wrote: Given that NB doesn't really support running on JDK 11 since a while I would simply opt for 2) and merge. Typo? JDK-11 --> JDK-8 -ernie - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Lets talk about JDK 8 (new year edition)

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 14:21, Michael Bien wrote: > The commit validation job is currently testing on 8, 11, 17 and 20-ea. > It doesn't like NetBeans editor modules which require java 11 though > which blocks a Jakarta EE 10 PR atm (#4692). > > This means we need either 1) a volunteer who would