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 Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org> on 2017/12/14 11:27:25 UTC
Supported JVMs
Good morning,
while looking at http://jackrabbit.apache.org/jcr/downloads.html I can
see that we have a sort-of matrix for supported jvms.
However stating something like _Java 7 and later_ implies that we run
test coverage on java9 as well; which is not true.
I think we should amend this page stating explicitly what JVMs we are
testing and what we're expecting to work. Or maybe create an apposite
page. I personal prefer a dedicated page.
Can we agree on a supported JVM matrix here?
Apache Jackrabbit 2.16.x
supported/tested: java8
Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.x
tested: Java 7
expected to work: java8
Apache Jackrabbit 2.15.x
supported: Java9
Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.7.x
supported: Java 8
expected: java9
Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.x
supported: java7
Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.2.x
supported: Java 6
Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.x
supported: Java 6
Apache Jackrabbit 2.14.x
Supported: Java 7
expected: java8
Apache Jackrabbit 2.12.x
supported Java 6
Apache Jackrabbit 2.10.x
supported: Java 6
Apache Jackrabbit 2.8.x
supported: Java 6
Apache Jackrabbit 2.6.x
supported: java6
Davide
Re: Supported JVMs
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2017-12-14 12:27, Davide Giannella wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> while looking at http://jackrabbit.apache.org/jcr/downloads.html I can
> see that we have a sort-of matrix for supported jvms.
>
> However stating something like _Java 7 and later_ implies that we run
> test coverage on java9 as well; which is not true.
>
> I think we should amend this page stating explicitly what JVMs we are
> testing and what we're expecting to work. Or maybe create an apposite
> page. I personal prefer a dedicated page.
>
> Can we agree on a supported JVM matrix here?
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.16.x
> supported/tested: java8
...expected: java9
> ...
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.15.x
> supported: Java9
not relevant, but Jackrabbit 2.17.*: like 2.16
Best regards, Julian
Re: Supported JVMs
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
The current information might encourage new users who look at the tested
and supported versions and decide that Jackrabbit can not be used in
their application because they are targeting Java 9 or 10 (Spring 2018
release- months away!) for their new application.
It may be more important to identify the minimum JVM required.
If a Jackrabbit version includes use of Java 8 or Java 9 features, it
will be important to say that it will not run on a lower version.
Could you add a comment "known to be running on Java N" to each version
to identify versions that are in use in production or application
development on a JVM that is not supported or tested? A bit more
definite than "expected" which implies that it has not be tried yet.
For example I have been using Jackrabbit 2.14 on Java 8 for a long time
without any issues.
I have been upgrading Jackrabbit and Java versions independently and
have not seen any issues.
Having this info on a separate page where users might feel more free to
add comments about their actual experience with different JVMs is a good
idea. The page should have a paragraph asking people to add comments
about their experience (good and bad) with untested or unsupported JVM
versions. Comments from early adopters of new JVMs might also be helpful
to the Jackrabbit developers in identifying areas that need work to
support newer JVMs.
Ron
On 14/12/2017 6:27 AM, Davide Giannella wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> while looking at http://jackrabbit.apache.org/jcr/downloads.html I can
> see that we have a sort-of matrix for supported jvms.
>
> However stating something like _Java 7 and later_ implies that we run
> test coverage on java9 as well; which is not true.
>
> I think we should amend this page stating explicitly what JVMs we are
> testing and what we're expecting to work. Or maybe create an apposite
> page. I personal prefer a dedicated page.
>
> Can we agree on a supported JVM matrix here?
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.16.x
> supported/tested: java8
>
> Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.x
> tested: Java 7
> expected to work: java8
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.15.x
> supported: Java9
>
> Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.7.x
> supported: Java 8
> expected: java9
>
> Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.x
> supported: java7
>
> Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.2.x
> supported: Java 6
>
> Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.x
> supported: Java 6
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.14.x
> Supported: Java 7
> expected: java8
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.12.x
> supported Java 6
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.10.x
> supported: Java 6
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.8.x
> supported: Java 6
>
> Apache Jackrabbit 2.6.x
> supported: java6
>
> Davide
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Supported JVMs
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
The statement that 4.x is archived should tell you that it is no longer
supported even on Java 1.3 but perhaps that could be more explicit.
Ron
On 14/12/2017 9:09 AM, Davide Giannella wrote:
> On 14/12/2017 12:23, Robert Munteanu wrote:
>> For the record, this is what Tomcat does
>>
>> http://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html
> So they basically put a big disclaimer when it comes to "and later" part.
>
> I personally don't like it. It's not really that immediate and by simply
> looking at the table, I expect, for example, Tomcat 4.x to run on java9
> and to receive some sort of support for it in case of issues.
>
> Davide
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Supported JVMs
Posted by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>.
On 14/12/2017 12:23, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> For the record, this is what Tomcat does
>
> http://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html
So they basically put a big disclaimer when it comes to "and later" part.
I personally don't like it. It's not really that immediate and by simply
looking at the table, I expect, for example, Tomcat 4.x to run on java9
and to receive some sort of support for it in case of issues.
Davide
Re: Supported JVMs
Posted by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>.
Hi Davide,
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 11:27 +0000, Davide Giannella wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> while looking at http://jackrabbit.apache.org/jcr/downloads.html I
> can
> see that we have a sort-of matrix for supported jvms.
>
> However stating something like _Java 7 and later_ implies that we run
> test coverage on java9 as well; which is not true.
>
> I think we should amend this page stating explicitly what JVMs we are
> testing and what we're expecting to work. Or maybe create an apposite
> page. I personal prefer a dedicated page.
For the record, this is what Tomcat does
http://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html
Robert