You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Julian Reschke <re...@apache.org> on 2026/01/06 12:06:13 UTC

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Am 28.11.2025 um 09:08 schrieb Julian Reschke:
> Hi there,
> 
> I'd like to start a discussion about changing the minimal Java version 
> to 17 (in early spring).
> 
> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-11952.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

...declaring rough consensus for Oak 1.94.0...

Best regardds, Julian

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.

Am 07.01.2026 um 14:29 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> Hi Julian,
> Thanks for the transparency. That helps a lot in these discussions.
> Is there any timeline on when the downstream project is ready for Java 21?

I believe it'a planned, but I don't think that there's a concrete target 
date yet. I wish there was a date, believe me :-)

> Given that Oracle premier support for Java 17 is expiring in Sept. 2026 I expect this to happen this year, right?
> 
> Thanks,
> Konrad

Hopefully. But I'm not sure that premier support is relevant here (as 
opposed to extended support).

Best regards, Julian

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Alejandro Moratinos <am...@gmail.com>.

Agree to that statement.

El jue, 8 ene 2026 a las 8:57, Julian Reschke (<re...@apache.org>)
escribió:

> Am 07.01.2026 um 14:29 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> > Hi Julian,
> > Thanks for the transparency. That helps a lot in these discussions.
> > Is there any timeline on when the downstream project is ready for Java
> 21?
> >
> > Given that Oracle premier support for Java 17 is expiring in Sept. 2026
> I expect this to happen this year, right?
>
> Unfortunately, I really don't know. I agree it SHOULD happen.
>
> Would it be correct to summarize this as: "there is consensus to move
> forward to *at least* to Java 17 for now, and to move further once
> downstream projects are ready"?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Konrad Windszus <kw...@apache.org>.

Yes, sounds fine. Thanks.
Konrad

> On 8. Jan 2026, at 08:57, Julian Reschke <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Am 07.01.2026 um 14:29 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
>> Hi Julian,
>> Thanks for the transparency. That helps a lot in these discussions.
>> Is there any timeline on when the downstream project is ready for Java 21?
>> Given that Oracle premier support for Java 17 is expiring in Sept. 2026 I expect this to happen this year, right?
> 
> Unfortunately, I really don't know. I agree it SHOULD happen.
> 
> Would it be correct to summarize this as: "there is consensus to move forward to *at least* to Java 17 for now, and to move further once downstream projects are ready"?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Julian Reschke <re...@apache.org>.

Am 07.01.2026 um 14:29 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> Hi Julian,
> Thanks for the transparency. That helps a lot in these discussions.
> Is there any timeline on when the downstream project is ready for Java 21?
> 
> Given that Oracle premier support for Java 17 is expiring in Sept. 2026 I expect this to happen this year, right?

Unfortunately, I really don't know. I agree it SHOULD happen.

Would it be correct to summarize this as: "there is consensus to move 
forward to *at least* to Java 17 for now, and to move further once 
downstream projects are ready"?

Best regards, Julian

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Konrad Windszus <ko...@windszus.net>.

Hi Julian,
Thanks for the transparency. That helps a lot in these discussions.
Is there any timeline on when the downstream project is ready for Java 21?

Given that Oracle premier support for Java 17 is expiring in Sept. 2026 I expect this to happen this year, right?

Thanks,
Konrad

> On 7. Jan 2026, at 11:42, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 07.01.2026 um 10:31 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
>> ...
>> What is the reason for switching straight to Java 21 instead of 17?
>> Keep in mind that we were on Java 11 for a long time and did not see
>> any major drawbacks.
>> IMO Oak (and Sling) are building blocks for applications and should
>> have wider compatibility with Java versions as opposed to applications
>> that can choose to run only on the latest Java version.
>> ...
> 
> Unfortunately we currently have a downstream project which is still on Java 17. Moving to Java 21 (right now) would force us to have an additional maintenance branch for some time, so I'd prefer to avoid that.
> 
> And yes, once that problem is gone, we should move on to Java 21 (or even further).
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.

Am 07.01.2026 um 10:31 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
> ...
> What is the reason for switching straight to Java 21 instead of 17?
> Keep in mind that we were on Java 11 for a long time and did not see
> any major drawbacks.
> 
> IMO Oak (and Sling) are building blocks for applications and should
> have wider compatibility with Java versions as opposed to applications
> that can choose to run only on the latest Java version.
> ...

Unfortunately we currently have a downstream project which is still on 
Java 17. Moving to Java 21 (right now) would force us to have an 
additional maintenance branch for some time, so I'd prefer to avoid that.

And yes, once that problem is gone, we should move on to Java 21 (or 
even further).

Best regards, Julian

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Konrad Windszus <kw...@apache.org>.

Hi Robert,

> On 7. Jan 2026, at 10:31, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 13:02 +0530, Rishabh Daim wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> +1 from my side.
>> 
>> But, I think that we should target Java 21.
> 
> The proposal for Java 17 was motivated in [1] as
> 
>> More and more third party libraries require Java 17, which stops us
> from upgrading to the latest and greatest version. In case of critical
> security issues, that might become a major problem.
> 
> What is the reason for switching straight to Java 21 instead of 17?
> Keep in mind that we were on Java 11 for a long time and did not see
> any major drawbacks.

The reasons are what I said before:

> This gives some nice features like record patterns.
> 
> Even Java 17 is EOL next year already…



> 
> IMO Oak (and Sling) are building blocks for applications and should
> have wider compatibility with Java versions as opposed to applications
> that can choose to run only on the latest Java version.

Right, however newer Java versions allow to write leaner/more modern code (javadoc, record patterns, …) and leverage new features which allows to get rid of 3rd party dependencies (like for Java HTTP Client) or have more performant implementations (like virtual threads).
Konrad

> 
> Thanks,
> Robert
> 
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-11952
>

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>.

On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 13:02 +0530, Rishabh Daim wrote:
> Hi
> 
> +1 from my side.
> 
> But, I think that we should target Java 21.

The proposal for Java 17 was motivated in [1] as

> More and more third party libraries require Java 17, which stops us
from upgrading to the latest and greatest version. In case of critical
security issues, that might become a major problem.

What is the reason for switching straight to Java 21 instead of 17?
Keep in mind that we were on Java 11 for a long time and did not see
any major drawbacks.

IMO Oak (and Sling) are building blocks for applications and should
have wider compatibility with Java versions as opposed to applications
that can choose to run only on the latest Java version.

Thanks,
Robert

[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-11952

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Rishabh Daim <ri...@gmail.com>.

Hi

+1 from my side.

But, I think that we should target Java 21.

Thanks
Rishabh Daim

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM Konrad Windszus <kw...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> Did I miss something. The only response was an unanswered question/remark
> which could be interpreted as a slight disagreement…
> Any concerns with jumping to Java 21 directly?
> Thanks,
> Konrad
>
> > On 6. Jan 2026, at 13:06, Julian Reschke <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Am 28.11.2025 um 09:08 schrieb Julian Reschke:
> >> Hi there,
> >> I'd like to start a discussion about changing the minimal Java version
> to 17 (in early spring).
> >> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-11952.
> >> Best regards, Julian
> >
> > ...declaring rough consensus for Oak 1.94.0...
> >
> > Best regardds, Julian
> >
>
>

Re: DISCUSS: Bump up minimal Java version to 17 (OAK-11952)

Posted by Konrad Windszus <kw...@apache.org>.

Hi,
Did I miss something. The only response was an unanswered question/remark which could be interpreted as a slight disagreement…
Any concerns with jumping to Java 21 directly?
Thanks,
Konrad

> On 6. Jan 2026, at 13:06, Julian Reschke <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Am 28.11.2025 um 09:08 schrieb Julian Reschke:
>> Hi there,
>> I'd like to start a discussion about changing the minimal Java version to 17 (in early spring).
>> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-11952.
>> Best regards, Julian
> 
> ...declaring rough consensus for Oak 1.94.0...
> 
> Best regardds, Julian
>