build requirements for Groovy and language level in master

[Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>]

Hi all,

so if we want to be serious about JDK9 support and not life with a 
thousands of warnings displayed whenever you try to execute a Groovy 
program or test (44k+ in our build for example)... then we will need 
JDK9 specific code.

That means we will have to change our build to support optional JDK9 
code, like we did in the past several times already. That also means a 
full build will require JDK9 a lower JDK will not make a full build 
then. And once Cedric fixed JDK9 support in gradle... ahem... poor guy. 
Anyway, I would like to hear thoughts about this from the others.


And then there is the matter of going to JDK8 master is supposed to be 
Groovy 3 did we say we want to go to JDK8 here? I think that would be 
nice... and of course if JDK8 is the minimum could start thinking about 
having indy enabled by default. Here too I would to hear what people think

bye Jochen

Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master

[John Wagenleitner <jo...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> so if we want to be serious about JDK9 support and not life with a
> thousands of warnings displayed whenever you try to execute a Groovy
> program or test (44k+ in our build for example)... then we will need JDK9
> specific code.
>
> That means we will have to change our build to support optional JDK9 code,
> like we did in the past several times already. That also means a full build
> will require JDK9 a lower JDK will not make a full build then. And once
> Cedric fixed JDK9 support in gradle... ahem... poor guy. Anyway, I would
> like to hear thoughts about this from the others.
>
>
I don't have a strong opinion here and the fact that it will run on jdk9
(even with 44k warnings) at this point sounds good to me. Since things are
still in flux it might be worth waiting a while.


>
> And then there is the matter of going to JDK8 master is supposed to be
> Groovy 3 did we say we want to go to JDK8 here? I think that would be
> nice... and of course if JDK8 is the minimum could start thinking about
> having indy enabled by default. Here too I would to hear what people think
>
>
I would be in favor of setting jdk8, indy (and parrot) as defaults in
master (v3).

I think an important decision to be made is how much backward compatibility
should be kept in v3. I do understand the concerns raised about backwards
compatibility (ala Python 2/3), but think there could be some benefit from
being able to focus on some of the significant architectural changes
without being contained by the need to retain compatibility.

Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master

[Daniel Sun <re...@hotmail.com>]

> And then there is the matter of going to JDK8 master is supposed to be 
Groovy 3 did we say we want to go to JDK8 here? I think that would be 
nice... and of course if JDK8 is the minimum could start thinking about
having indy enabled by default. Here too I would to hear what people think 


It would be good for a dynamic programming language to enable indy by
default. JDK8 supports indy better than JDK7, so +1 from me to set JDK8 as
minimum for Groovy3(master branch).

Cheers,
Daniel.Sun



--
View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/build-requirements-for-Groovy-and-language-level-in-master-tp5739721p5739734.html
Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master

[Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>]

On April 8, 2017 7:35:18 PM GMT+02:00, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>On 08.04.2017 16:29, Remi Forax wrote:
>> Jochen,
>> technically, you do not need the jdk 9,
>> you can compile with jdk 8 and have a jar that contains the
>declaration
>> of methods of the jdk 9 you want.
>
>and use -Xbootclasspath/p:path? yes, I guess we can do that.
>JDK-8177827 
>will get in the way, but that is minor. Too bad that is in the future
>no 
>real option anymore because of JDK-8177844. 

you can use --patch-module, 8177844 is about --patch-module having the side effect of making the module upgradeable,  i.e. being able to replace the module instead of patching it.

> But that will not affect us right now
>
>> JRuby had worked that way when it was jdk 6 compatible but optionally
>> uses the java.lang.invoke API.
>
>yeah, good idea ;)
>
>bye Jochen

Rémi 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master

[Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>]

On 08.04.2017 16:29, Remi Forax wrote:
> Jochen,
> technically, you do not need the jdk 9,
> you can compile with jdk 8 and have a jar that contains the declaration
> of methods of the jdk 9 you want.

and use -Xbootclasspath/p:path? yes, I guess we can do that. JDK-8177827 
will get in the way, but that is minor. Too bad that is in the future no 
real option anymore because of JDK-8177844. But that will not affect us 
right now

> JRuby had worked that way when it was jdk 6 compatible but optionally
> uses the java.lang.invoke API.

yeah, good idea ;)

bye Jochen

Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master

[Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>]

Jochen,
technically, you do not need the jdk 9,
you can compile with jdk 8 and have a jar that contains the declaration of methods of the jdk 9 you want.

JRuby had worked that way when it was jdk 6 compatible but optionally uses the java.lang.invoke API.

regards,
Rémi

On April 8, 2017 10:11:51 AM GMT+02:00, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>so if we want to be serious about JDK9 support and not life with a 
>thousands of warnings displayed whenever you try to execute a Groovy 
>program or test (44k+ in our build for example)... then we will need 
>JDK9 specific code.
>
>That means we will have to change our build to support optional JDK9 
>code, like we did in the past several times already. That also means a 
>full build will require JDK9 a lower JDK will not make a full build 
>then. And once Cedric fixed JDK9 support in gradle... ahem... poor guy.
>
>Anyway, I would like to hear thoughts about this from the others.
>
>
>And then there is the matter of going to JDK8 master is supposed to be 
>Groovy 3 did we say we want to go to JDK8 here? I think that would be 
>nice... and of course if JDK8 is the minimum could start thinking about
>
>having indy enabled by default. Here too I would to hear what people
>think
>
>bye Jochen

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.