Re: [PROPOSAL] Making sure the code works with Java 21

[Paolo Bizzarri <pi...@gmail.com>]

Hi Tibor,

I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal.

I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about
supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed?

Thanks again for all the effort.

Regards

Paolo


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Privo
di virus.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this and
> someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are no
> objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections to
> continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let people
> that are already involved in this task to start contributing by opening PRs
> in the relevant repositories.
>
> For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the Phase 2. I
> think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we want
> to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to have PR
> checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the Phase
> 2 proposal.
>
> Best regards,
> Tibor
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago stated
> > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we don't
> > break one of the versions.
> >
> > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote:
> > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java 21.
> > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17 being
> > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds running
> > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one of the
> > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph <
> deepakjoseph305@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and runnable
> with
> > Java
> > > > 21
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Deepak Joseph
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to help in
> > this
> > > > > effort)
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco wrote. We
> > have
> > > > > Maven
> > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no coordinated
> effort
> > yet to
> > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is about
> > it. There
> > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g. mentioned in
> > GWT, or
> > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This effort
> > should make
> > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21 and
> Java
> > 17.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader discussion if we
> > agree
> > > > > on
> > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the Phase 2. I
> > am not
> > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It just
> needs
> > to be
> > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are needed as
> > Java 17
> > > > > ones
> > > > > > etc.).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope that clarifies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Tibor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it could
> be
> > worth
> > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote:
> > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java
> version
> > is 11,
> > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I understand,
> it
> > should
> > > > > > > work with version 21 as well
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules with that
> > property
> > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT sources with
> > any JDK
> > > > > 8+,
> > > > > > > when I tried some months ago.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all modules
> > should be
> > > > > set
> > > > > > > to 17
> > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption is
> true.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer <
> > yamer@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> Tibor,
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please clarify:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules with JDK
> > version
> > > > > < 17,
> > > > > > > > >>> right?
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> means:
> > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both JDK 17
> > and
> > > > > JDK 21
> > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR Checks,
> > one that
> > > > > runs
> > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK 21
> > (optaplanner
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)?
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Yeser
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available, already for
> > some
> > > > > time,
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable and
> > runnable
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java 17.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like this:
> > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure the code works with Java 17.
> > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure that the existing CI still
> > works the
> > > > > > > same way
> > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even if we
> > have
> > > > > Java 17
> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should work.
> > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to build
> the
> > > > > > > repositories
> > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21.
> > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running tests
> with
> > Java
> > > > > 21
> > > > > > > and are
> > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21.
> > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to contain
> > JDK 21
> > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>> 17.
> > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE repositories,
> > mainly:
> > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner,
> > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes,
> incubator-kie-kogito-apps,
> > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples, incubator-kie-tools.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> means:
> > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote on
> Monday
> > > > > based on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do this
> > work is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Making sure the code works with Java 21

[Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org>]

Hi Yeser,

sure.

Best regards,
Tibor

Dňa po 23. 2. 2026, 10:59 Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org> napísal(a):

> Hi Tibor!
>
> Are you still planning to work on this after the 10.2.0 release?
> Thank you.
>
> Yeser
>
> On 2025/09/29 11:13:00 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I checked the repositories and Phase 1 looks done. Thanks for everyone
> > involved. Now we can go ahead for the Phase 2. Here is my proposal for
> it:
> > - All PR checks are moved to Java 21.
> > - New PR check is introduced for each repository, that will build and
> test
> > the changes with Java 17.
> > - Release pipelines are updated to use Java 21.
> >
> > What do you think, please? This may be influenced by another thread on
> the
> > mailing list - about 10.2.0 release. To not have impact on the release, I
> > propose these changes to be done after 10.2.0 is released.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tibor
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:31 AM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check
> > > everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that
> till the
> > > end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much for reminding me.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Tibor
> > >
> > > Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <pi...@gmail.com>
> napísal(a):
> > >
> > >> Hi Tibor,
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal.
> > >>
> > >> I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about
> > >> supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks again for all the effort.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >>
> > >> Paolo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> <
> > >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >> >
> > >> Privo
> > >> di virus.www.avast.com
> > >> <
> > >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >> >
> > >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi everyone,
> > >> >
> > >> > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this
> and
> > >> > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are
> no
> > >> > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections
> to
> > >> > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let
> > >> people
> > >> > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by
> opening
> > >> PRs
> > >> > in the relevant repositories.
> > >> >
> > >> > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the
> Phase
> > >> 2. I
> > >> > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we
> > >> want
> > >> > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to
> have
> > >> PR
> > >> > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the
> > >> Phase
> > >> > 2 proposal.
> > >> >
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Tibor
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <
> lightguardjp@apache.org>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago
> stated
> > >> > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we
> > >> don't
> > >> > > break one of the versions.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote:
> > >> > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java
> 21.
> > >> > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17
> being
> > >> > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds
> > >> running
> > >> > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph <
> > >> > deepakjoseph305@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and
> runnable
> > >> > with
> > >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > 21
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Regards,
> > >> > > > > Deepak Joseph
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to
> help
> > >> in
> > >> > > this
> > >> > > > > > effort)
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco
> wrote.
> > >> We
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > > > Maven
> > >> > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no
> coordinated
> > >> > effort
> > >> > > yet to
> > >> > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is
> > >> about
> > >> > > it. There
> > >> > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g.
> mentioned
> > >> in
> > >> > > GWT, or
> > >> > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This
> effort
> > >> > > should make
> > >> > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21
> and
> > >> > Java
> > >> > > 17.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader
> discussion
> > >> if we
> > >> > > agree
> > >> > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the
> Phase
> > >> 2. I
> > >> > > am not
> > >> > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It
> just
> > >> > needs
> > >> > > to be
> > >> > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are
> needed as
> > >> > > Java 17
> > >> > > > > > ones
> > >> > > > > > > etc.).
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Hope that clarifies.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > Tibor
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <
> yamer@apache.org>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it
> > >> could
> > >> > be
> > >> > > worth
> > >> > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java
> > >> > version
> > >> > > is 11,
> > >> > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I
> > >> understand,
> > >> > it
> > >> > > should
> > >> > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0
> 
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer <
> > >> yamer@apache.org>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules
> with
> > >> that
> > >> > > property
> > >> > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT
> sources
> > >> with
> > >> > > any JDK
> > >> > > > > > 8+,
> > >> > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all
> modules
> > >> > > should be
> > >> > > > > > set
> > >> > > > > > > > to 17
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption
> is
> > >> > true.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer <
> > >> > > yamer@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please
> clarify:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules
> with
> > >> JDK
> > >> > > version
> > >> > > > > > < 17,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> right?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default.
> This
> > >> > means:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with
> Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both
> > >> JDK 17
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > JDK 21
> > >> > > > > > > > for a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR
> > >> Checks,
> > >> > > one that
> > >> > > > > > runs
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK
> 21
> > >> > > (optaplanner
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available,
> already
> > >> for
> > >> > > some
> > >> > > > > > time,
> > >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be
> buildable and
> > >> > > runnable
> > >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with
> Java 17.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like
> this:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure the code works with
> Java
> > >> 17.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure that the existing CI
> still
> > >> > > works the
> > >> > > > > > > > same way
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even
> if
> > >> we
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > > > Java 17
> > >> > > > > > > > as a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should
> work.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to
> > >> build
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > > > repositories
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running
> tests
> > >> > with
> > >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > > 21
> > >> > > > > > > > and are
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to
> > >> contain
> > >> > > JDK 21
> > >> > > > > > > > instead
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE
> repositories,
> > >> > > mainly:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes,
> > >> > incubator-kie-kogito-apps,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples,
> incubator-kie-tools.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default.
> This
> > >> > means:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with
> Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote
> on
> > >> > Monday
> > >> > > > > > based on
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do
> > >> this
> > >> > > work is
> > >> > > > > > > > already
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Making sure the code works with Java 21

[Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>]

Hi Tibor!

Are you still planning to work on this after the 10.2.0 release? 
Thank you.

Yeser

On 2025/09/29 11:13:00 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I checked the repositories and Phase 1 looks done. Thanks for everyone
> involved. Now we can go ahead for the Phase 2. Here is my proposal for it:
> - All PR checks are moved to Java 21.
> - New PR check is introduced for each repository, that will build and test
> the changes with Java 17.
> - Release pipelines are updated to use Java 21.
> 
> What do you think, please? This may be influenced by another thread on the
> mailing list - about 10.2.0 release. To not have impact on the release, I
> propose these changes to be done after 10.2.0 is released.
> 
> Best regards,
> Tibor
> 
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:31 AM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check
> > everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that till the
> > end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2.
> >
> > Thank you very much for reminding me.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tibor
> >
> > Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <pi...@gmail.com> napísal(a):
> >
> >> Hi Tibor,
> >>
> >> I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal.
> >>
> >> I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about
> >> supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed?
> >>
> >> Thanks again for all the effort.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Paolo
> >>
> >>
> >> <
> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> Privo
> >> di virus.www.avast.com
> >> <
> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi everyone,
> >> >
> >> > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this and
> >> > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are no
> >> > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections to
> >> > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let
> >> people
> >> > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by opening
> >> PRs
> >> > in the relevant repositories.
> >> >
> >> > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the Phase
> >> 2. I
> >> > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we
> >> want
> >> > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to have
> >> PR
> >> > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the
> >> Phase
> >> > 2 proposal.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Tibor
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago stated
> >> > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we
> >> don't
> >> > > break one of the versions.
> >> > >
> >> > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote:
> >> > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java 21.
> >> > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17 being
> >> > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds
> >> running
> >> > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one of
> >> the
> >> > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph <
> >> > deepakjoseph305@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and runnable
> >> > with
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > 21
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > Deepak Joseph
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to help
> >> in
> >> > > this
> >> > > > > > effort)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco wrote.
> >> We
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > Maven
> >> > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no coordinated
> >> > effort
> >> > > yet to
> >> > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is
> >> about
> >> > > it. There
> >> > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g. mentioned
> >> in
> >> > > GWT, or
> >> > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This effort
> >> > > should make
> >> > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21 and
> >> > Java
> >> > > 17.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader discussion
> >> if we
> >> > > agree
> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the Phase
> >> 2. I
> >> > > am not
> >> > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It just
> >> > needs
> >> > > to be
> >> > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are needed as
> >> > > Java 17
> >> > > > > > ones
> >> > > > > > > etc.).
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hope that clarifies.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > Tibor
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it
> >> could
> >> > be
> >> > > worth
> >> > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java
> >> > version
> >> > > is 11,
> >> > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I
> >> understand,
> >> > it
> >> > > should
> >> > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer <
> >> yamer@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules with
> >> that
> >> > > property
> >> > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT sources
> >> with
> >> > > any JDK
> >> > > > > > 8+,
> >> > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all modules
> >> > > should be
> >> > > > > > set
> >> > > > > > > > to 17
> >> > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption is
> >> > true.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer <
> >> > > yamer@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please clarify:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules with
> >> JDK
> >> > > version
> >> > > > > > < 17,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> right?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> >> > means:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both
> >> JDK 17
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > JDK 21
> >> > > > > > > > for a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR
> >> Checks,
> >> > > one that
> >> > > > > > runs
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK 21
> >> > > (optaplanner
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available, already
> >> for
> >> > > some
> >> > > > > > time,
> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> would
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable and
> >> > > runnable
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like this:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure the code works with Java
> >> 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure that the existing CI still
> >> > > works the
> >> > > > > > > > same way
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even if
> >> we
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > Java 17
> >> > > > > > > > as a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should work.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to
> >> build
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > > repositories
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running tests
> >> > with
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > 21
> >> > > > > > > > and are
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to
> >> contain
> >> > > JDK 21
> >> > > > > > > > instead
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> of
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE repositories,
> >> > > mainly:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes,
> >> > incubator-kie-kogito-apps,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples, incubator-kie-tools.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> >> > means:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote on
> >> > Monday
> >> > > > > > based on
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do
> >> this
> >> > > work is
> >> > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Making sure the code works with Java 21

[Alex Porcelli <al...@porcelli.me>]

Thank you, Tibor.

+1 for your proposal

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 7:14 AM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I checked the repositories and Phase 1 looks done. Thanks for everyone
> involved. Now we can go ahead for the Phase 2. Here is my proposal for it:
> - All PR checks are moved to Java 21.
> - New PR check is introduced for each repository, that will build and test
> the changes with Java 17.
> - Release pipelines are updated to use Java 21.
>
> What do you think, please? This may be influenced by another thread on the
> mailing list - about 10.2.0 release. To not have impact on the release, I
> propose these changes to be done after 10.2.0 is released.
>
> Best regards,
> Tibor
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:31 AM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check
> > everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that till the
> > end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2.
> >
> > Thank you very much for reminding me.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tibor
> >
> > Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <pi...@gmail.com> napísal(a):
> >
> >> Hi Tibor,
> >>
> >> I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal.
> >>
> >> I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about
> >> supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed?
> >>
> >> Thanks again for all the effort.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Paolo
> >>
> >>
> >> <
> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> Privo
> >> di virus.www.avast.com
> >> <
> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi everyone,
> >> >
> >> > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this and
> >> > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are no
> >> > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections to
> >> > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let
> >> people
> >> > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by opening
> >> PRs
> >> > in the relevant repositories.
> >> >
> >> > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the Phase
> >> 2. I
> >> > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we
> >> want
> >> > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to have
> >> PR
> >> > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the
> >> Phase
> >> > 2 proposal.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Tibor
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago stated
> >> > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we
> >> don't
> >> > > break one of the versions.
> >> > >
> >> > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote:
> >> > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java 21.
> >> > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17 being
> >> > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds
> >> running
> >> > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one of
> >> the
> >> > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph <
> >> > deepakjoseph305@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and runnable
> >> > with
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > 21
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > Deepak Joseph
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to help
> >> in
> >> > > this
> >> > > > > > effort)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco wrote.
> >> We
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > Maven
> >> > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no coordinated
> >> > effort
> >> > > yet to
> >> > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is
> >> about
> >> > > it. There
> >> > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g. mentioned
> >> in
> >> > > GWT, or
> >> > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This effort
> >> > > should make
> >> > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21 and
> >> > Java
> >> > > 17.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader discussion
> >> if we
> >> > > agree
> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the Phase
> >> 2. I
> >> > > am not
> >> > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It just
> >> > needs
> >> > > to be
> >> > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are needed as
> >> > > Java 17
> >> > > > > > ones
> >> > > > > > > etc.).
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hope that clarifies.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > Tibor
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it
> >> could
> >> > be
> >> > > worth
> >> > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java
> >> > version
> >> > > is 11,
> >> > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I
> >> understand,
> >> > it
> >> > > should
> >> > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer <
> >> yamer@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules with
> >> that
> >> > > property
> >> > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT sources
> >> with
> >> > > any JDK
> >> > > > > > 8+,
> >> > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all modules
> >> > > should be
> >> > > > > > set
> >> > > > > > > > to 17
> >> > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption is
> >> > true.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer <
> >> > > yamer@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please clarify:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules with
> >> JDK
> >> > > version
> >> > > > > > < 17,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> right?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> >> > means:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both
> >> JDK 17
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > JDK 21
> >> > > > > > > > for a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR
> >> Checks,
> >> > > one that
> >> > > > > > runs
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK 21
> >> > > (optaplanner
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available, already
> >> for
> >> > > some
> >> > > > > > time,
> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> would
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable and
> >> > > runnable
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like this:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure the code works with Java
> >> 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure that the existing CI still
> >> > > works the
> >> > > > > > > > same way
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even if
> >> we
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > Java 17
> >> > > > > > > > as a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should work.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to
> >> build
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > > repositories
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running tests
> >> > with
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > 21
> >> > > > > > > > and are
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to
> >> contain
> >> > > JDK 21
> >> > > > > > > > instead
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> of
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE repositories,
> >> > > mainly:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes,
> >> > incubator-kie-kogito-apps,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples, incubator-kie-tools.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> >> > means:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote on
> >> > Monday
> >> > > > > > based on
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do
> >> this
> >> > > work is
> >> > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Making sure the code works with Java 21

[Deepak Joseph <de...@gmail.com>]

+1, Looks good to me


Regards,
Deepak Joseph


On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 6:05 PM Kusuma Latha <ku...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yeah , I agree with you Tibor.
>
> +1
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 at 4:52 PM, Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I checked the repositories and Phase 1 looks done. Thanks for everyone
> > involved. Now we can go ahead for the Phase 2. Here is my proposal for
> it:
> > - All PR checks are moved to Java 21.
> > - New PR check is introduced for each repository, that will build and
> test
> > the changes with Java 17.
> > - Release pipelines are updated to use Java 21.
> >
> > What do you think, please? This may be influenced by another thread on
> the
> > mailing list - about 10.2.0 release. To not have impact on the release, I
> > propose these changes to be done after 10.2.0 is released.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tibor
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:31 AM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check
> > > everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that till
> > the
> > > end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much for reminding me.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Tibor
> > >
> > > Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <pi...@gmail.com>
> napísal(a):
> > >
> > >> Hi Tibor,
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal.
> > >>
> > >> I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about
> > >> supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks again for all the effort.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >>
> > >> Paolo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >> >
> > >> Privo
> > >> di virus.www.avast.com
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >> >
> > >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi everyone,
> > >> >
> > >> > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this
> > and
> > >> > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are
> no
> > >> > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections
> to
> > >> > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let
> > >> people
> > >> > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by
> > opening
> > >> PRs
> > >> > in the relevant repositories.
> > >> >
> > >> > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the
> Phase
> > >> 2. I
> > >> > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we
> > >> want
> > >> > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to
> > have
> > >> PR
> > >> > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the
> > >> Phase
> > >> > 2 proposal.
> > >> >
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Tibor
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <
> > lightguardjp@apache.org>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago
> stated
> > >> > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we
> > >> don't
> > >> > > break one of the versions.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote:
> > >> > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java
> 21.
> > >> > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17
> > being
> > >> > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds
> > >> running
> > >> > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph <
> > >> > deepakjoseph305@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and
> > runnable
> > >> > with
> > >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > 21
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Regards,
> > >> > > > > Deepak Joseph
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to
> help
> > >> in
> > >> > > this
> > >> > > > > > effort)
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco
> wrote.
> > >> We
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > > > Maven
> > >> > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no
> coordinated
> > >> > effort
> > >> > > yet to
> > >> > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is
> > >> about
> > >> > > it. There
> > >> > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g.
> > mentioned
> > >> in
> > >> > > GWT, or
> > >> > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This
> > effort
> > >> > > should make
> > >> > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21
> > and
> > >> > Java
> > >> > > 17.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader
> discussion
> > >> if we
> > >> > > agree
> > >> > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the
> Phase
> > >> 2. I
> > >> > > am not
> > >> > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It
> just
> > >> > needs
> > >> > > to be
> > >> > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are
> needed
> > as
> > >> > > Java 17
> > >> > > > > > ones
> > >> > > > > > > etc.).
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Hope that clarifies.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > Tibor
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <
> > yamer@apache.org>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it
> > >> could
> > >> > be
> > >> > > worth
> > >> > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java
> > >> > version
> > >> > > is 11,
> > >> > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I
> > >> understand,
> > >> > it
> > >> > > should
> > >> > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0
> 
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer <
> > >> yamer@apache.org>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules
> with
> > >> that
> > >> > > property
> > >> > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT
> sources
> > >> with
> > >> > > any JDK
> > >> > > > > > 8+,
> > >> > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all
> > modules
> > >> > > should be
> > >> > > > > > set
> > >> > > > > > > > to 17
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption
> is
> > >> > true.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer <
> > >> > > yamer@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please
> > clarify:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules
> with
> > >> JDK
> > >> > > version
> > >> > > > > > < 17,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> right?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default.
> This
> > >> > means:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java
> > 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both
> > >> JDK 17
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > JDK 21
> > >> > > > > > > > for a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR
> > >> Checks,
> > >> > > one that
> > >> > > > > > runs
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK
> 21
> > >> > > (optaplanner
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available,
> > already
> > >> for
> > >> > > some
> > >> > > > > > time,
> > >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable
> > and
> > >> > > runnable
> > >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java
> > 17.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like
> this:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure the code works with
> Java
> > >> 17.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure that the existing CI
> > still
> > >> > > works the
> > >> > > > > > > > same way
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even
> if
> > >> we
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > > > Java 17
> > >> > > > > > > > as a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should
> > work.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to
> > >> build
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > > > repositories
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running
> > tests
> > >> > with
> > >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > > 21
> > >> > > > > > > > and are
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to
> > >> contain
> > >> > > JDK 21
> > >> > > > > > > > instead
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE
> > repositories,
> > >> > > mainly:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes,
> > >> > incubator-kie-kogito-apps,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples,
> incubator-kie-tools.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default.
> This
> > >> > means:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java
> > 21.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote
> on
> > >> > Monday
> > >> > > > > > based on
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do
> > >> this
> > >> > > work is
> > >> > > > > > > > already
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Making sure the code works with Java 21

[Kusuma Latha <ku...@gmail.com>]

Yeah , I agree with you Tibor.

+1


On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 at 4:52 PM, Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I checked the repositories and Phase 1 looks done. Thanks for everyone
> involved. Now we can go ahead for the Phase 2. Here is my proposal for it:
> - All PR checks are moved to Java 21.
> - New PR check is introduced for each repository, that will build and test
> the changes with Java 17.
> - Release pipelines are updated to use Java 21.
>
> What do you think, please? This may be influenced by another thread on the
> mailing list - about 10.2.0 release. To not have impact on the release, I
> propose these changes to be done after 10.2.0 is released.
>
> Best regards,
> Tibor
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:31 AM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check
> > everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that till
> the
> > end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2.
> >
> > Thank you very much for reminding me.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tibor
> >
> > Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <pi...@gmail.com> napísal(a):
> >
> >> Hi Tibor,
> >>
> >> I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal.
> >>
> >> I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about
> >> supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed?
> >>
> >> Thanks again for all the effort.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Paolo
> >>
> >>
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> Privo
> >> di virus.www.avast.com
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi everyone,
> >> >
> >> > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this
> and
> >> > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are no
> >> > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections to
> >> > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let
> >> people
> >> > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by
> opening
> >> PRs
> >> > in the relevant repositories.
> >> >
> >> > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the Phase
> >> 2. I
> >> > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we
> >> want
> >> > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to
> have
> >> PR
> >> > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the
> >> Phase
> >> > 2 proposal.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Tibor
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <
> lightguardjp@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago stated
> >> > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we
> >> don't
> >> > > break one of the versions.
> >> > >
> >> > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote:
> >> > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java 21.
> >> > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17
> being
> >> > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds
> >> running
> >> > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one of
> >> the
> >> > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph <
> >> > deepakjoseph305@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and
> runnable
> >> > with
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > 21
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > Deepak Joseph
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to help
> >> in
> >> > > this
> >> > > > > > effort)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco wrote.
> >> We
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > Maven
> >> > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no coordinated
> >> > effort
> >> > > yet to
> >> > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is
> >> about
> >> > > it. There
> >> > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g.
> mentioned
> >> in
> >> > > GWT, or
> >> > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This
> effort
> >> > > should make
> >> > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21
> and
> >> > Java
> >> > > 17.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader discussion
> >> if we
> >> > > agree
> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the Phase
> >> 2. I
> >> > > am not
> >> > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It just
> >> > needs
> >> > > to be
> >> > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are needed
> as
> >> > > Java 17
> >> > > > > > ones
> >> > > > > > > etc.).
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hope that clarifies.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > Tibor
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <
> yamer@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it
> >> could
> >> > be
> >> > > worth
> >> > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java
> >> > version
> >> > > is 11,
> >> > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I
> >> understand,
> >> > it
> >> > > should
> >> > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer <
> >> yamer@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules with
> >> that
> >> > > property
> >> > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT sources
> >> with
> >> > > any JDK
> >> > > > > > 8+,
> >> > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all
> modules
> >> > > should be
> >> > > > > > set
> >> > > > > > > > to 17
> >> > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption is
> >> > true.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer <
> >> > > yamer@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please
> clarify:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules with
> >> JDK
> >> > > version
> >> > > > > > < 17,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> right?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> >> > means:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java
> 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both
> >> JDK 17
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > JDK 21
> >> > > > > > > > for a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR
> >> Checks,
> >> > > one that
> >> > > > > > runs
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK 21
> >> > > (optaplanner
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available,
> already
> >> for
> >> > > some
> >> > > > > > time,
> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> would
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable
> and
> >> > > runnable
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java
> 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like this:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure the code works with Java
> >> 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure that the existing CI
> still
> >> > > works the
> >> > > > > > > > same way
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even if
> >> we
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > Java 17
> >> > > > > > > > as a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should
> work.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to
> >> build
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > > repositories
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running
> tests
> >> > with
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > 21
> >> > > > > > > > and are
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to
> >> contain
> >> > > JDK 21
> >> > > > > > > > instead
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> of
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE
> repositories,
> >> > > mainly:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes,
> >> > incubator-kie-kogito-apps,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples, incubator-kie-tools.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> >> > means:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java
> 21.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote on
> >> > Monday
> >> > > > > > based on
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do
> >> this
> >> > > work is
> >> > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Making sure the code works with Java 21

[Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org>]

Hi everyone,

I checked the repositories and Phase 1 looks done. Thanks for everyone
involved. Now we can go ahead for the Phase 2. Here is my proposal for it:
- All PR checks are moved to Java 21.
- New PR check is introduced for each repository, that will build and test
the changes with Java 17.
- Release pipelines are updated to use Java 21.

What do you think, please? This may be influenced by another thread on the
mailing list - about 10.2.0 release. To not have impact on the release, I
propose these changes to be done after 10.2.0 is released.

Best regards,
Tibor

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:31 AM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check
> everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that till the
> end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2.
>
> Thank you very much for reminding me.
>
> Best regards,
> Tibor
>
> Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <pi...@gmail.com> napísal(a):
>
>> Hi Tibor,
>>
>> I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal.
>>
>> I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about
>> supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed?
>>
>> Thanks again for all the effort.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>>
>> <
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> >
>> Privo
>> di virus.www.avast.com
>> <
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> >
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this and
>> > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are no
>> > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections to
>> > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let
>> people
>> > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by opening
>> PRs
>> > in the relevant repositories.
>> >
>> > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the Phase
>> 2. I
>> > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we
>> want
>> > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to have
>> PR
>> > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the
>> Phase
>> > 2 proposal.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Tibor
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago stated
>> > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we
>> don't
>> > > break one of the versions.
>> > >
>> > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote:
>> > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java 21.
>> > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17 being
>> > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds
>> running
>> > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one of
>> the
>> > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph <
>> > deepakjoseph305@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and runnable
>> > with
>> > > Java
>> > > > > 21
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > Deepak Joseph
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to help
>> in
>> > > this
>> > > > > > effort)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
>> > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco wrote.
>> We
>> > > have
>> > > > > > Maven
>> > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no coordinated
>> > effort
>> > > yet to
>> > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is
>> about
>> > > it. There
>> > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g. mentioned
>> in
>> > > GWT, or
>> > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This effort
>> > > should make
>> > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21 and
>> > Java
>> > > 17.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader discussion
>> if we
>> > > agree
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the Phase
>> 2. I
>> > > am not
>> > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It just
>> > needs
>> > > to be
>> > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are needed as
>> > > Java 17
>> > > > > > ones
>> > > > > > > etc.).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hope that clarifies.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > Tibor
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it
>> could
>> > be
>> > > worth
>> > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java
>> > version
>> > > is 11,
>> > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I
>> understand,
>> > it
>> > > should
>> > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer <
>> yamer@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules with
>> that
>> > > property
>> > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT sources
>> with
>> > > any JDK
>> > > > > > 8+,
>> > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all modules
>> > > should be
>> > > > > > set
>> > > > > > > > to 17
>> > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption is
>> > true.
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer <
>> > > yamer@apache.org>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please clarify:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules with
>> JDK
>> > > version
>> > > > > > < 17,
>> > > > > > > > > >>> right?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
>> > means:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both
>> JDK 17
>> > > and
>> > > > > > JDK 21
>> > > > > > > > for a
>> > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR
>> Checks,
>> > > one that
>> > > > > > runs
>> > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK 21
>> > > (optaplanner
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available, already
>> for
>> > > some
>> > > > > > time,
>> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > >>> would
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable and
>> > > runnable
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java 17.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like this:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure the code works with Java
>> 17.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure that the existing CI still
>> > > works the
>> > > > > > > > same way
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even if
>> we
>> > > have
>> > > > > > Java 17
>> > > > > > > > as a
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should work.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to
>> build
>> > the
>> > > > > > > > repositories
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running tests
>> > with
>> > > Java
>> > > > > > 21
>> > > > > > > > and are
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to
>> contain
>> > > JDK 21
>> > > > > > > > instead
>> > > > > > > > > >>> of
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE repositories,
>> > > mainly:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes,
>> > incubator-kie-kogito-apps,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples, incubator-kie-tools.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
>> > means:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote on
>> > Monday
>> > > > > > based on
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do
>> this
>> > > work is
>> > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Making sure the code works with Java 21

[Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org>]

Hi Paolo,

the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check
everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that till the
end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2.

Thank you very much for reminding me.

Best regards,
Tibor

Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <pi...@gmail.com> napísal(a):

> Hi Tibor,
>
> I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal.
>
> I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about
> supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed?
>
> Thanks again for all the effort.
>
> Regards
>
> Paolo
>
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> Privo
> di virus.www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <tz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this and
> > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are no
> > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections to
> > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let
> people
> > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by opening
> PRs
> > in the relevant repositories.
> >
> > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the Phase 2.
> I
> > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we want
> > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to have
> PR
> > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the
> Phase
> > 2 proposal.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tibor
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago stated
> > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we
> don't
> > > break one of the versions.
> > >
> > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote:
> > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java 21.
> > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17 being
> > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds running
> > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one of the
> > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph <
> > deepakjoseph305@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and runnable
> > with
> > > Java
> > > > > 21
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Deepak Joseph
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to help in
> > > this
> > > > > > effort)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco wrote. We
> > > have
> > > > > > Maven
> > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no coordinated
> > effort
> > > yet to
> > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is about
> > > it. There
> > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g. mentioned
> in
> > > GWT, or
> > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This effort
> > > should make
> > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21 and
> > Java
> > > 17.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader discussion if
> we
> > > agree
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the Phase 2.
> I
> > > am not
> > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It just
> > needs
> > > to be
> > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are needed as
> > > Java 17
> > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > etc.).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope that clarifies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Tibor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <ya...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it could
> > be
> > > worth
> > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java
> > version
> > > is 11,
> > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I understand,
> > it
> > > should
> > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer <
> yamer@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules with
> that
> > > property
> > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT sources
> with
> > > any JDK
> > > > > > 8+,
> > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all modules
> > > should be
> > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > to 17
> > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption is
> > true.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer <
> > > yamer@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor,
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please clarify:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules with JDK
> > > version
> > > > > > < 17,
> > > > > > > > > >>> right?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> > means:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both JDK
> 17
> > > and
> > > > > > JDK 21
> > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR Checks,
> > > one that
> > > > > > runs
> > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK 21
> > > (optaplanner
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available, already
> for
> > > some
> > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable and
> > > runnable
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java 17.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like this:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure the code works with Java
> 17.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - This should make sure that the existing CI still
> > > works the
> > > > > > > > same way
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even if we
> > > have
> > > > > > Java 17
> > > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should work.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to build
> > the
> > > > > > > > repositories
> > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running tests
> > with
> > > Java
> > > > > > 21
> > > > > > > > and are
> > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to
> contain
> > > JDK 21
> > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE repositories,
> > > mainly:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes,
> > incubator-kie-kogito-apps,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples, incubator-kie-tools.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This
> > means:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>    - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote on
> > Monday
> > > > > > based on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do this
> > > work is
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>