You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> on 2023/06/01 06:28:18 UTC
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely fine
to require a newer version. I don't think we should wait and support JDK 8
until 2030 and then switch from JDK 8 to what, JDK 24 ? That's really not a
good plan imho and that's what maintenance branches are used for. The JDK
release cycle has changed and the whole java ecosystem is adapting to this
faster release cycle.
So I think we should:
* maintain a 3.x branch with JDK 8 and provide bug fixes
* set up 4.x branches to require at least the oldest actively supported
JDK at the time the first micro version is released (so that would be 17 by
the time 4.0.0 comes out) and 21 by the end of 2026 (maybe 4.2.0 ?)
JDK 17 can still target JDK 8 for compilation, so that should cover most
needs.
If needed, we could even automatically download a JRE 17 at first usage
(using [1] but we'd have to check for upgrades, etc...) and continue the
work for discovering toolchains [2], etc... to help users. We could also
make JDK toolchains much easier to use by modifying the project model and
adding specific support for it. That would allow selecting the toolchains
very early in the build, thus allowing toolchain based jdk activation, and
would make the configuration much simpler. Though I have a feeling that
all this is not really necessary...
Guillaume
[1] https://foojay.io/
[2] https://github.com/apache/maven-toolchains-plugin/pulls
Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 21:17, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> a écrit :
> I also would like to point out that OpenJDK 8 support will surpass 11 by
> 2030: https://endoflife.date/java
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
On 2023/06/01 06:28:18 Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely fine
> to require a newer version. I don't think we should wait and support JDK 8
> until 2030 and then switch from JDK 8 to what, JDK 24 ? That's really not a
> good plan imho and that's what maintenance branches are used for. The JDK
> release cycle has changed and the whole java ecosystem is adapting to this
> faster release cycle.
So what? All we need to make sure that Maven runs on it, not requires it.
> So I think we should:
> * maintain a 3.x branch with JDK 8 and provide bug fixes
> * set up 4.x branches to require at least the oldest actively supported
> JDK at the time the first micro version is released (so that would be 17 by
> the time 4.0.0 comes out) and 21 by the end of 2026 (maybe 4.2.0 ?)
> JDK 17 can still target JDK 8 for compilation, so that should cover most
> needs.
We do already actively support newer JDKs.
> If needed, we could even automatically download a JRE 17 at first usage
> (using [1] but we'd have to check for upgrades, etc...) and continue the
> work for discovering toolchains [2], etc... to help users. We could also
> make JDK toolchains much easier to use by modifying the project model and
> adding specific support for it. That would allow selecting the toolchains
> very early in the build, thus allowing toolchain based jdk activation, and
> would make the configuration much simpler. Though I have a feeling that
> all this is not really necessary...
This sounds like a total waste of time and yet another NIH syndrome. Someone else has invented package managers aleady.
I am still against, we gain very little compared to the junk we still have in the basement. It requires a massive cleanup: JIRA has > 2000 open issues and rising. Cases, important ones not resolved for years. I don't see a reason to do something new if the foundation isn't clean.
M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Martijn Verburg <ma...@gmail.com>.
As an FYI - https://adoptium.net/en-GB/support/ can give a guide as to the
thinking around OSS support for Java 8 (Nov 2026 is the minimum timeline,
it may extend).
Cheers,
Martijn
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 23:36, Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:47 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep but this is also something an OSS product don't want to rely on (ie
> > particular vendor specificities which can change), so we should probably
> > stick to the global dates and align on these ones consistently.
> >
>
> Yes, but that principle implies the opposite. We should not rely on
> the particular vendor specificities of Oracle's commercial release,
> including when they decide to stop supporting JDK 8.
>
> The open source release of JDK 8 is available and will continue to be
> so for years. It is supported and maintained by multiple companies,
> organizations, and individuals, not just Oracle. It is an active
> project with quarterly releases and many active committers:
>
> https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/jdk8u/Main
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elharo@ibiblio.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org>.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:47 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
<rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep but this is also something an OSS product don't want to rely on (ie
> particular vendor specificities which can change), so we should probably
> stick to the global dates and align on these ones consistently.
>
Yes, but that principle implies the opposite. We should not rely on
the particular vendor specificities of Oracle's commercial release,
including when they decide to stop supporting JDK 8.
The open source release of JDK 8 is available and will continue to be
so for years. It is supported and maintained by multiple companies,
organizations, and individuals, not just Oracle. It is an active
project with quarterly releases and many active committers:
https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/jdk8u/Main
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@ibiblio.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le jeu. 1 juin 2023 à 12:39, Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org> a
écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:28 AM Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely
> fine
> > to require a newer version.
>
> This is a common misconception. JDK 8 is fully supported by multiple
> companies including Azul. It also seems supported by Oracle:
>
> "For Java SE 8, Oracle will continue to release new updates on its
> public websites for personal/individual users or for non-production,
> development/testing purposes. However, commercial/business use of
> those public releases in production is restricted and requires a
> commercial license."
>
Yep but this is also something an OSS product don't want to rely on (ie
particular vendor specificities which can change), so we should probably
stick to the global dates and align on these ones consistently.
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elharo@ibiblio.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 12:51 PM Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Neither nor. Many use OpenJDK in production even w/o any commercial plans
> because they are happy with that. So there is also C.
>
And that is fine, if they are happy with it, they should be happy with
other "same age" tech, so they probably don't want to migrate to Maven 4
anyway....
But seemingly we are again back at Delany's question: what do customer
(app/lib runtime) requirements have to do with the build tool's required
JDK?
T
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
Neither nor. Many use OpenJDK in production even w/o any commercial plans because they are happy with that. So there is also C.
On 2023/06/01 10:48:28 Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> This is silly.
> So we need to support Java 8 in the future (not yet happened) Maven 4
> releases due:
>
> A) hobbyist (personal/individual users or for non-production,
> development/testing purposes)
>
> OR
>
> B) commercial entities paying for licenses (commercial/business use of
> those public releases in production is restricted and requires a commercial
> license)
>
> Which one, A or B?
>
> For me, cas A hobbyists will happily use the latest Java LTS. And in case B
> support DID end in a sense Guillaume meant it.
>
> Thanks
> T
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 12:39 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:28 AM Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely
> > fine
> > > to require a newer version.
> >
> > This is a common misconception. JDK 8 is fully supported by multiple
> > companies including Azul. It also seems supported by Oracle:
> >
> > "For Java SE 8, Oracle will continue to release new updates on its
> > public websites for personal/individual users or for non-production,
> > development/testing purposes. However, commercial/business use of
> > those public releases in production is restricted and requires a
> > commercial license."
> >
> > --
> > Elliotte Rusty Harold
> > elharo@ibiblio.org
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>.
This is silly.
So we need to support Java 8 in the future (not yet happened) Maven 4
releases due:
A) hobbyist (personal/individual users or for non-production,
development/testing purposes)
OR
B) commercial entities paying for licenses (commercial/business use of
those public releases in production is restricted and requires a commercial
license)
Which one, A or B?
For me, cas A hobbyists will happily use the latest Java LTS. And in case B
support DID end in a sense Guillaume meant it.
Thanks
T
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 12:39 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:28 AM Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely
> fine
> > to require a newer version.
>
> This is a common misconception. JDK 8 is fully supported by multiple
> companies including Azul. It also seems supported by Oracle:
>
> "For Java SE 8, Oracle will continue to release new updates on its
> public websites for personal/individual users or for non-production,
> development/testing purposes. However, commercial/business use of
> those public releases in production is restricted and requires a
> commercial license."
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elharo@ibiblio.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@ibiblio.org>.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:28 AM Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely fine
> to require a newer version.
This is a common misconception. JDK 8 is fully supported by multiple
companies including Azul. It also seems supported by Oracle:
"For Java SE 8, Oracle will continue to release new updates on its
public websites for personal/individual users or for non-production,
development/testing purposes. However, commercial/business use of
those public releases in production is restricted and requires a
commercial license."
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@ibiblio.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Sounds like a plan to me we have to adopt the new JDK release schedule
somehow anyway, we cant stick on java 8 now it is EOL and java 11 soon so
today only java 17 is a fair option for users.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le jeu. 1 juin 2023 à 08:28, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> a écrit :
> JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely fine
> to require a newer version. I don't think we should wait and support JDK 8
> until 2030 and then switch from JDK 8 to what, JDK 24 ? That's really not a
> good plan imho and that's what maintenance branches are used for. The JDK
> release cycle has changed and the whole java ecosystem is adapting to this
> faster release cycle.
>
> So I think we should:
> * maintain a 3.x branch with JDK 8 and provide bug fixes
> * set up 4.x branches to require at least the oldest actively supported
> JDK at the time the first micro version is released (so that would be 17 by
> the time 4.0.0 comes out) and 21 by the end of 2026 (maybe 4.2.0 ?)
> JDK 17 can still target JDK 8 for compilation, so that should cover most
> needs.
>
> If needed, we could even automatically download a JRE 17 at first usage
> (using [1] but we'd have to check for upgrades, etc...) and continue the
> work for discovering toolchains [2], etc... to help users. We could also
> make JDK toolchains much easier to use by modifying the project model and
> adding specific support for it. That would allow selecting the toolchains
> very early in the build, thus allowing toolchain based jdk activation, and
> would make the configuration much simpler. Though I have a feeling that
> all this is not really necessary...
>
> Guillaume
>
> [1] https://foojay.io/
> [2] https://github.com/apache/maven-toolchains-plugin/pulls
>
> Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 21:17, Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> a écrit
> :
>
> > I also would like to point out that OpenJDK 8 support will surpass 11 by
> > 2030: https://endoflife.date/java
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>