Hi Jan, For end users (of Ivy), the place where pack200 packaging becomes visible is when they reference it in their dependencies as noted in our doc[1]. So IMO, I think we should probably add a note/warning within our documentation than a runtime log/warn message. But I still think, it's a bit too early to do that. Maybe we should wait a few more releases of Java and see if any alternatives show up?
[1] https://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/latest-milestone/concept.html#packaging -Jaikiran On 10/10/18 11:09 AM, Jan Matèrne (jhm) wrote: > If I understand Dragans point right, the warning comes when analyzing the > code. > Not just running Ivy. > So the normal user won't see the warning. Maybe we should implement a warning? > > Jan > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Jaikiran Pai [mailto:jaiki...@apache.org] >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2018 07:08 >> An: dev@ant.apache.org >> Betreff: Re: Java 11 Compatibility Problem >> >> I agree with Stefan, at the moment I recommend ignoring those warnings. >> There isn't anything else we can do (other than removing support for >> pack200, which isn't a good option). >> >> -Jaikiran >> >> >> On 10/10/18 9:56 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof >>> >>> I'm not actively working on Ivy so take my response with a grain of >>> salt. >>> >>> On 2018-10-09, Dragan, Krzysztof wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> scanning latest version of Apache Ivy(2.5.0-rc-1) using jdeprscan on >>>> jdk11 I noticed two problems with this jar. >>>> These two methods using internal jdk marked for removal and will be >> deleted: >>>> * class org/apache/ivy/util/FileUtil uses deprecated class >>>> java/util/jar/Pack200$Unpacker (forRemoval=true) >>>> * class org/apache/ivy/util/FileUtil uses deprecated class >>>> java/util/jar/Pack200 (forRemoval=true) >>> For background see https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/336 >>> >>> The Java community has decided to eventually remove support for the >>> pack200 format, but it still is there in Java11. Right now this is >>> only a warning, it will only become a real problem once the classes >>> actually get removed. They do not offer any alternative >> implementation >>> right now, and may never do (unlike the JAXB case, which is available >>> as an external library now). >>> >>> I am aware of an alternative based on the former Apache Harmony code >>> in https://github.com/pfirmstone/pack200 but am unsure about its >> state >>> - both technically and legally - I very vaguely recall the Pack200 >>> spec was encumbered with Oracle patents but may be totally wrong. >>> >>> In Ivy's case the only save option right now was to remove support >> for >>> pack200 archives and break existing setups that consume such archives >>> which seems to be excessive just in order to get rid of a warning. >>> >>> If yu ask me I'd recommend to live with the warning for now and wait >>> for an alternative to the class library's pack200 classes to become >>> available - which hopefully happens before the Java version removing >>> support gets released. >>> >>> Stefan >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional >>> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional >> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
