You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jspwiki.apache.org by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com> on 2022/08/09 13:08:43 UTC
Upgrading jdk requirement?
Hi all,
As noted some days ago, may be out is time to upgrade the jdk requirement?
Currently we're on jdk8, which is quite behind current LTS, and given the
new jdk release cycle, it'll be easy to be in this situation again, so a
couple of questions:
- should we upgrade? To which jdk? Other than requiring an LTS, I'd be okay
with whatever we see fit.
- how often should we upgrade? Staying 1 or 2 lts behind? Every N releases?
Every minor (X.Y.0) release?
Best regards,
juan pablo
Re: Upgrading jdk requirement?
Posted by Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com>.
Hi Juan Pablo,
I'm perfectly fine with JDK 11 and certainly bumping to it from Java 8 in
2022 is hardly a radical step, with so far as I can see little downside.
I've not for my own projects moved to JDK 17 but I appreciate hearing that
for you it's been worth the effort. Even the multiline strings for JSPWiki
would be quite welcome.
I wanted to add that the latest 2022-09 version of Eclipse requires JDK 17
at minimum (though of course one can add older JREs for specific projects),
but I'd think moving to JDK 11 for now would be prudent and would have my
full support.
As some may not know, I'm developing a graph-based ReferenceManager for
JSPWiki that does require JDK 11 (due to some of the essential libraries
requiring it, not simply my decision), so having the main project bumped to
that version would permit my ReferenceManager to use the same JDK as the
application itself.
Cheers,
Murray
On 2022/09/23 6:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> Hiya!
>
> been on holidays and with a lot of $dayjob after that, just wanted to close
> this, so it doesn't slip through.
> Let's say next version will be 2.12.0, instead of 2.11.4, and it will
> require JDK-11? As for when to upgrade
> the JDK requirement, let's just ask the question every minor release, if
> it's reasonable to do so? Or the
> other way round, when upgrading the JDK requirement, it would require
> increasing at least a minor release?
>
> As a side note, and completely agreeing with the reasons to upgrade to
> JDK-11, my experience with JDK-17
> has been very similar to what Murray expressed with JDK-11, cleaner and
> less verbose code, as compared
> with JDK-11; multiline strings, pattern matching, helpful NPEs, records,
> etc. are little things that ease your
> day to day, and that I've found missing when going back..
>
>
> kind regards,
> juan pablo
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:36 PM Jürgen Weber <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually I never understood the need for get/setters anyway (course I know
>> the book). C++ got along well without.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com> schrieb am Di., 9. Aug. 2022, 16:12:
>>
>>> On 2022/08/09 22:55, Jürgen Weber wrote:
>>>> Java 11 would be OK. Not more. Enterprises are very conservative.
>>>
>>> Agreed, my current job is largely upgrading dozens and dozens of JDK 8
>>> applications which have had no love for over a decade. I'm not so sure
>>> if this is the result of being conservative so much as executive
>>> management's typical desire to build New Things rather than maintain
>>> Old Things, or possibly The World of Constant Emergencies.
>>>
>>>> Also, I do not see why a mature product like JSPWiki should be
>>>> refactored to use newer Java features.
>>> I'm not a fan of using new features simply because they're new, but I
>>> have found some of the Java 11 features result in cleaner and less
>>> verbose code, e.g., some of the streaming syntax removes a lot of lines
>>> of boilerplate. This can be (like many things) abused and make things
>>> harder to either read or understand, but on balance I've gotten used to
>>> using many of the Java 11 features. Post JDK 11, I've found little of
>>> real value so far.
>>>
>>> On one of my larger personal projects I experimented recently with
>>> trying to back-date the code to JDK 8 and found that I'm very much a
>>> Java 11 person now, as almost none of the classes compiled as I'd used
>>> a lot of the new syntax.
>>>
>>> I've also previously suggested Lombok, which has for me become somewhat
>>> of a standard for all new code*. It removes all the pointless getters and
>>> setters, and with @Builder one effectively gets a DSL. Combining Lombok
>>> with an enum class really cleans up a lot of ugly use of integer
>> contants,
>>> such as found in WikiPageEvent. I'd be happy to help out with migrating
>>> to Java 11, simply to get rid of that kind of thing...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Murray
>>>
>>> * I really wish Lombok were adopted into the Java syntax itself.
>>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>> Murray Altheim <murray18 at altheim dot com> = =
>> ===
>>> http://www.altheim.com/murray/ ===
>>> ===
>>> = =
>>> ===
>>> In the evening
>>> The rice leaves in the garden
>>> Rustle in the autumn wind
>>> That blows through my reed hut.
>>> -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray18 at altheim dot com> = = ===
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ === ===
= = ===
In the evening
The rice leaves in the garden
Rustle in the autumn wind
That blows through my reed hut.
-- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
Re: Upgrading jdk requirement?
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hiya!
been on holidays and with a lot of $dayjob after that, just wanted to close
this, so it doesn't slip through.
Let's say next version will be 2.12.0, instead of 2.11.4, and it will
require JDK-11? As for when to upgrade
the JDK requirement, let's just ask the question every minor release, if
it's reasonable to do so? Or the
other way round, when upgrading the JDK requirement, it would require
increasing at least a minor release?
As a side note, and completely agreeing with the reasons to upgrade to
JDK-11, my experience with JDK-17
has been very similar to what Murray expressed with JDK-11, cleaner and
less verbose code, as compared
with JDK-11; multiline strings, pattern matching, helpful NPEs, records,
etc. are little things that ease your
day to day, and that I've found missing when going back..
kind regards,
juan pablo
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:36 PM Jürgen Weber <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually I never understood the need for get/setters anyway (course I know
> the book). C++ got along well without.
>
> Cheers
>
> Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com> schrieb am Di., 9. Aug. 2022, 16:12:
>
> > On 2022/08/09 22:55, Jürgen Weber wrote:
> > > Java 11 would be OK. Not more. Enterprises are very conservative.
> >
> > Agreed, my current job is largely upgrading dozens and dozens of JDK 8
> > applications which have had no love for over a decade. I'm not so sure
> > if this is the result of being conservative so much as executive
> > management's typical desire to build New Things rather than maintain
> > Old Things, or possibly The World of Constant Emergencies.
> >
> > > Also, I do not see why a mature product like JSPWiki should be
> > > refactored to use newer Java features.
> > I'm not a fan of using new features simply because they're new, but I
> > have found some of the Java 11 features result in cleaner and less
> > verbose code, e.g., some of the streaming syntax removes a lot of lines
> > of boilerplate. This can be (like many things) abused and make things
> > harder to either read or understand, but on balance I've gotten used to
> > using many of the Java 11 features. Post JDK 11, I've found little of
> > real value so far.
> >
> > On one of my larger personal projects I experimented recently with
> > trying to back-date the code to JDK 8 and found that I'm very much a
> > Java 11 person now, as almost none of the classes compiled as I'd used
> > a lot of the new syntax.
> >
> > I've also previously suggested Lombok, which has for me become somewhat
> > of a standard for all new code*. It removes all the pointless getters and
> > setters, and with @Builder one effectively gets a DSL. Combining Lombok
> > with an enum class really cleans up a lot of ugly use of integer
> contants,
> > such as found in WikiPageEvent. I'd be happy to help out with migrating
> > to Java 11, simply to get rid of that kind of thing...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Murray
> >
> > * I really wish Lombok were adopted into the Java syntax itself.
> >
> ...........................................................................
> > Murray Altheim <murray18 at altheim dot com> = =
> ===
> > http://www.altheim.com/murray/ ===
> > ===
> > = =
> > ===
> > In the evening
> > The rice leaves in the garden
> > Rustle in the autumn wind
> > That blows through my reed hut.
> > -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
> >
> >
>
Re: Upgrading jdk requirement?
Posted by Jürgen Weber <we...@gmail.com>.
Actually I never understood the need for get/setters anyway (course I know
the book). C++ got along well without.
Cheers
Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com> schrieb am Di., 9. Aug. 2022, 16:12:
> On 2022/08/09 22:55, Jürgen Weber wrote:
> > Java 11 would be OK. Not more. Enterprises are very conservative.
>
> Agreed, my current job is largely upgrading dozens and dozens of JDK 8
> applications which have had no love for over a decade. I'm not so sure
> if this is the result of being conservative so much as executive
> management's typical desire to build New Things rather than maintain
> Old Things, or possibly The World of Constant Emergencies.
>
> > Also, I do not see why a mature product like JSPWiki should be
> > refactored to use newer Java features.
> I'm not a fan of using new features simply because they're new, but I
> have found some of the Java 11 features result in cleaner and less
> verbose code, e.g., some of the streaming syntax removes a lot of lines
> of boilerplate. This can be (like many things) abused and make things
> harder to either read or understand, but on balance I've gotten used to
> using many of the Java 11 features. Post JDK 11, I've found little of
> real value so far.
>
> On one of my larger personal projects I experimented recently with
> trying to back-date the code to JDK 8 and found that I'm very much a
> Java 11 person now, as almost none of the classes compiled as I'd used
> a lot of the new syntax.
>
> I've also previously suggested Lombok, which has for me become somewhat
> of a standard for all new code*. It removes all the pointless getters and
> setters, and with @Builder one effectively gets a DSL. Combining Lombok
> with an enum class really cleans up a lot of ugly use of integer contants,
> such as found in WikiPageEvent. I'd be happy to help out with migrating
> to Java 11, simply to get rid of that kind of thing...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Murray
>
> * I really wish Lombok were adopted into the Java syntax itself.
> ...........................................................................
> Murray Altheim <murray18 at altheim dot com> = = ===
> http://www.altheim.com/murray/ ===
> ===
> = =
> ===
> In the evening
> The rice leaves in the garden
> Rustle in the autumn wind
> That blows through my reed hut.
> -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
>
>
Re: Upgrading jdk requirement?
Posted by Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com>.
On 2022/08/09 22:55, Jürgen Weber wrote:
> Java 11 would be OK. Not more. Enterprises are very conservative.
Agreed, my current job is largely upgrading dozens and dozens of JDK 8
applications which have had no love for over a decade. I'm not so sure
if this is the result of being conservative so much as executive
management's typical desire to build New Things rather than maintain
Old Things, or possibly The World of Constant Emergencies.
> Also, I do not see why a mature product like JSPWiki should be
> refactored to use newer Java features.
I'm not a fan of using new features simply because they're new, but I
have found some of the Java 11 features result in cleaner and less
verbose code, e.g., some of the streaming syntax removes a lot of lines
of boilerplate. This can be (like many things) abused and make things
harder to either read or understand, but on balance I've gotten used to
using many of the Java 11 features. Post JDK 11, I've found little of
real value so far.
On one of my larger personal projects I experimented recently with
trying to back-date the code to JDK 8 and found that I'm very much a
Java 11 person now, as almost none of the classes compiled as I'd used
a lot of the new syntax.
I've also previously suggested Lombok, which has for me become somewhat
of a standard for all new code*. It removes all the pointless getters and
setters, and with @Builder one effectively gets a DSL. Combining Lombok
with an enum class really cleans up a lot of ugly use of integer contants,
such as found in WikiPageEvent. I'd be happy to help out with migrating
to Java 11, simply to get rid of that kind of thing...
Cheers,
Murray
* I really wish Lombok were adopted into the Java syntax itself.
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray18 at altheim dot com> = = ===
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ === ===
= = ===
In the evening
The rice leaves in the garden
Rustle in the autumn wind
That blows through my reed hut.
-- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
Re: Upgrading jdk requirement?
Posted by Jürgen Weber <we...@gmail.com>.
Java 11 would be OK. Not more. Enterprises are very conservative.
Also, I do not see why a mature product like JSPWiki should be
refactored to use newer Java features.
Cheers,
Juergen
Am Di., 9. Aug. 2022 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez
<ju...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As noted some days ago, may be out is time to upgrade the jdk requirement?
> Currently we're on jdk8, which is quite behind current LTS, and given the
> new jdk release cycle, it'll be easy to be in this situation again, so a
> couple of questions:
>
> - should we upgrade? To which jdk? Other than requiring an LTS, I'd be okay
> with whatever we see fit.
>
> - how often should we upgrade? Staying 1 or 2 lts behind? Every N releases?
> Every minor (X.Y.0) release?
>
>
> Best regards,
> juan pablo