Compiler targets and Java 9

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Compiler targets and Java 9

jochen-2
Hi,

thanks to Rob Rompkins, and his recent work on Fileupload, it came to
my attention that Java 9 will no longer support JVM 1.5, and lower, as
a compiler target. [1]

This means, that we will be preventing our developers from using Java
9, if a component is still below 1.6. (And, I'd expect that to be the
case for quite some projects.)

Now, leaving the general discussions regarding Java 9, and (in
particular) Jigsaw, aside, I think that is something that we ought to
consider.

OTOH, it seems reasonable to expect that Java 9 adoption will be slow,
given that it isn't upwards compatible.

So, as a  compromise, I propose that we adopt the following policy:

All commons proper components are expected within one year from now on
to bump their compiler target to 1.6, or beyond, and have a release
published with that target. That way, we know, that it works fine with
the Java 9 compiler.

Jochen




1: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/182

--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

Emmanuel Bourg-3
Le 5/06/2017 à 16:41, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :

> All commons proper components are expected within one year from now on
> to bump their compiler target to 1.6, or beyond, and have a release
> published with that target. That way, we know, that it works fine with
> the Java 9 compiler.

+1 for using 1.6 as the baseline, but I don't see the need to publish
new releases with that target if nothing else changed.

Emmanuel Bourg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

jochen-2
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for using 1.6 as the baseline, but I don't see the need to publish
> new releases with that target if nothing else changed.

I'd like us to push out a new release with minimal changes at any
time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the previous
release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.

Jochen



--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

sebb-2-2
On 5 June 2017 at 15:54, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1 for using 1.6 as the baseline, but I don't see the need to publish
>> new releases with that target if nothing else changed.

+1 for 1.6

If we don't release, then we can only change the pom in trunk.
We should not encourage ordinary users to build from trunk.
Which would mean that the software would not be buildable using Java 9.

>
> I'd like us to push out a new release with minimal changes at any
> time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the previous
> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.

Sorry, I don't follow.
Are there some missing words from the above?

> Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

jochen-2
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:06 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I'd like us to push out a new release with minimal changes at any
>> time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the previous
>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow.
> Are there some missing words from the above?

Indeed there are. So, to repeat that:

I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
previous
release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
(Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)

Jochen



--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

sebb-2-2
On 5 June 2017 at 16:09, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:06 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> I'd like us to push out a new release with minimal changes at any
>>> time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the previous
>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't follow.
>> Are there some missing words from the above?
>
> Indeed there are. So, to repeat that:
>
> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
> previous
> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)

Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
would prevent a security release.
Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
and change to 1.6 at the same time?

Or would there need to be fixes to the code just to update to 1.6?
In which case releasing a 1.6 would ensure those were fixed at our
leisure instead of having to be fixed as part of a rush to release
security patch.
Is that what you mean?

> Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

jochen-2
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
>> previous
>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
>
> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
> would prevent a security release.
> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
> and change to 1.6 at the same time?

Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
drop-in replacement.

Jochen


--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

sebb-2-2
On 5 June 2017 at 17:17, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
>>> previous
>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
>>
>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
>> would prevent a security release.
>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
>
> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
> drop-in replacement.

It would not be a drop-in replacement for systems running Java 1.5,
but surely it would be compatible for those running 1.6?
If they are still running 1.5, the release would be no use anyway.

I agree that we should ideally release 1.6 to make it quicker to
release an emergency fix (and to help those stuck with 1.9+).
I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

> Jochen
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

garydgregory
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:20 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 June 2017 at 16:09, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:06 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>> I'd like us to push out a new release with minimal changes at any
> >>> time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the previous
> >>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't follow.
> >> Are there some missing words from the above?
> >
> > Indeed there are. So, to repeat that:
> >
> > I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
> > at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
> > previous
> > release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
> > (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
>
> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
> would prevent a security release.
> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
>

+1

Gary

>
> Or would there need to be fixes to the code just to update to 1.6?
> In which case releasing a 1.6 would ensure those were fixed at our
> leisure instead of having to be fixed as part of a rush to release
> security patch.
> Is that what you mean?
>
> > Jochen
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >
> > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

garydgregory
In reply to this post by jochen-2
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
> >> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
> >> previous
> >> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
> >> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
> >
> > Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
> > would prevent a security release.
> > Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
> > and change to 1.6 at the same time?
>
> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
> drop-in replacement.
>

If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome to
provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If
your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing
security issues to address...

Gary

>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

Ralph Goers
This whole discussion has me really confused.  According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version reached end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/ <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even show Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 <https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates that it also was dropped in 2015.

So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors who ship it support it?

Ralph


> On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
>>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
>>>> previous
>>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
>>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
>>>
>>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
>>> would prevent a security release.
>>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
>>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
>>
>> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
>> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
>> drop-in replacement.
>>
>
> If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome to
> provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If
> your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing
> security issues to address...
>
> Gary
>
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>> --
>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>
>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ <http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/>
>> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

Matt Sicker
I'm confused about one thing here. Sure, you can't use javac in 9 to
compile for 5, but can't java in 9 still run class files compiled against
5? If you couldn't run older java classes anymore, then I don't know why
Oracle continues to maintain backward compatibility in places that are
annoying.

On 5 June 2017 at 11:54, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This whole discussion has me really confused.  According to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of
> Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version reached
> end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/
> <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even show
> Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 <
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates that
> it also was dropped in 2015.
>
> So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors
> who ship it support it?
>
> Ralph
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
> >>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
> >>>> previous
> >>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
> >>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
> >>>
> >>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
> >>> would prevent a security release.
> >>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
> >>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
> >>
> >> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
> >> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
> >> drop-in replacement.
> >>
> >
> > If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome
> to
> > provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If
> > your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing
> > security issues to address...
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >>
> >> Jochen
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >>
> >> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ <
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/>
> >> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
> [hidden email]>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
> [hidden email]>
>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

Amey Jadiye
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
+1

I have seen hundreds of applications which are in (maintenance+ little
enhancement) mode are already moved to higher versions of java ( >1.5 ),
even very legacy applications which are just in maintenance mode or marked
for decommission are already running on 1.6 as all know that there will be
no updates. there could be rarest of rare applications running on 1.5 and
sure they dont want move else they could have moved long back to 1.6 and
and rarely 1.5 will move to java8 or 9 ;)

so yeah, why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the
vendors who ship it support it ? just move our modules for >=1.6.

Regards,
Amey

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This whole discussion has me really confused.  According to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of
> Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version reached
> end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/
> <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even show
> Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 <
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates that
> it also was dropped in 2015.
>
> So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors
> who ship it support it?
>
> Ralph
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
> >>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
> >>>> previous
> >>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
> >>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
> >>>
> >>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
> >>> would prevent a security release.
> >>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
> >>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
> >>
> >> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
> >> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
> >> drop-in replacement.
> >>
> >
> > If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome
> to
> > provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If
> > your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing
> > security issues to address...
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >>
> >> Jochen
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >>
> >> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ <
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/>
> >> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
> [hidden email]>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
> [hidden email]>
>



--

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]

For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

sebb-2-2
On 5 June 2017 at 20:26, Amey Jadiye <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> I have seen hundreds of applications which are in (maintenance+ little
> enhancement) mode are already moved to higher versions of java ( >1.5 ),
> even very legacy applications which are just in maintenance mode or marked
> for decommission are already running on 1.6 as all know that there will be
> no updates. there could be rarest of rare applications running on 1.5 and
> sure they dont want move else they could have moved long back to 1.6 and
> and rarely 1.5 will move to java8 or 9 ;)
>
> so yeah, why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the
> vendors who ship it support it ? just move our modules for >=1.6.

This thread is *not* about support for 1.5.

It's about supporting Java 9, and what to do about components whose
last release is 1.5 or earlier.

That is very different.

> Regards,
> Amey
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> This whole discussion has me really confused.  According to
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history <
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of
>> Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version reached
>> end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/
>> <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even show
>> Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
>> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 <
>> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
>> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates that
>> it also was dropped in 2015.
>>
>> So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors
>> who ship it support it?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
>> >>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
>> >>>> previous
>> >>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
>> >>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
>> >>> would prevent a security release.
>> >>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
>> >>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
>> >>
>> >> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
>> >> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
>> >> drop-in replacement.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome
>> to
>> > provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If
>> > your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing
>> > security issues to address...
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Jochen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>> >>
>> >> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ <
>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/>
>> >> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
>> [hidden email]>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

Amey Jadiye
correct, moving to Java9 might be restricting 1.5 to run on higher
versions, that said they may not run on java 9 so all this discussion came
in picture, I wish we can have java 9 target well at the same time we
should detach our self from java 1.5, just a view.

Regards,
Amey

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:25 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 June 2017 at 20:26, Amey Jadiye <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I have seen hundreds of applications which are in (maintenance+ little
> > enhancement) mode are already moved to higher versions of java ( >1.5 ),
> > even very legacy applications which are just in maintenance mode or
> marked
> > for decommission are already running on 1.6 as all know that there will
> be
> > no updates. there could be rarest of rare applications running on 1.5 and
> > sure they dont want move else they could have moved long back to 1.6 and
> > and rarely 1.5 will move to java8 or 9 ;)
> >
> > so yeah, why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the
> > vendors who ship it support it ? just move our modules for >=1.6.
>
> This thread is *not* about support for 1.5.
>
> It's about supporting Java 9, and what to do about components whose
> last release is 1.5 or earlier.
>
> That is very different.
>
> > Regards,
> > Amey
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This whole discussion has me really confused.  According to
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history <
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of
> >> Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version
> reached
> >> end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/
> javasdk/support/lifecycle/
> >> <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even
> show
> >> Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
> >> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 <
> >> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
> >> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates
> that
> >> it also was dropped in 2015.
> >>
> >> So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors
> >> who ship it support it?
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal
> changes
> >> >>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and
> the
> >> >>>> previous
> >> >>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
> >> >>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
> >> >>> would prevent a security release.
> >> >>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
> >> >>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
> >> >> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
> >> >> drop-in replacement.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are
> welcome
> >> to
> >> > provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5.
> If
> >> > your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more
> pressing
> >> > security issues to address...
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Jochen
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ <
> >> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/>
> >> >> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >> >>
> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> <mailto:
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]

For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
OK. Who cares if their last release was Java 1.5? They will never release another version that supports it.

Ralph

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:55 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 5 June 2017 at 20:26, Amey Jadiye <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> I have seen hundreds of applications which are in (maintenance+ little
>> enhancement) mode are already moved to higher versions of java ( >1.5 ),
>> even very legacy applications which are just in maintenance mode or marked
>> for decommission are already running on 1.6 as all know that there will be
>> no updates. there could be rarest of rare applications running on 1.5 and
>> sure they dont want move else they could have moved long back to 1.6 and
>> and rarely 1.5 will move to java8 or 9 ;)
>>
>> so yeah, why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the
>> vendors who ship it support it ? just move our modules for >=1.6.
>
> This thread is *not* about support for 1.5.
>
> It's about supporting Java 9, and what to do about components whose
> last release is 1.5 or earlier.
>
> That is very different.
>
>> Regards,
>> Amey
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This whole discussion has me really confused.  According to
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history <
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of
>>> Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version reached
>>> end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/
>>> <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even show
>>> Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
>>> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 <
>>> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
>>> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates that
>>> it also was dropped in 2015.
>>>
>>> So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors
>>> who ship it support it?
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
>>>>>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
>>>>>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
>>>>>> would prevent a security release.
>>>>>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
>>>>>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
>>>>> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
>>>>> drop-in replacement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome
>>> to
>>>> provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If
>>>> your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing
>>>> security issues to address...
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jochen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ <
>>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/>
>>>>> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

sebb-2-2
On 5 June 2017 at 21:06, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> OK. Who cares if their last release was Java 1.5? They will never release another version that supports it.

Not sure who you mean by 'they' here.

This thread is about Commons components whose latest release is 1.5 or
earlier, and what to do about it now that Java 9+ no longer supports
1.5 as a compiler option.

> Ralph
>
>> On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:55 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 5 June 2017 at 20:26, Amey Jadiye <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I have seen hundreds of applications which are in (maintenance+ little
>>> enhancement) mode are already moved to higher versions of java ( >1.5 ),
>>> even very legacy applications which are just in maintenance mode or marked
>>> for decommission are already running on 1.6 as all know that there will be
>>> no updates. there could be rarest of rare applications running on 1.5 and
>>> sure they dont want move else they could have moved long back to 1.6 and
>>> and rarely 1.5 will move to java8 or 9 ;)
>>>
>>> so yeah, why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the
>>> vendors who ship it support it ? just move our modules for >=1.6.
>>
>> This thread is *not* about support for 1.5.
>>
>> It's about supporting Java 9, and what to do about components whose
>> last release is 1.5 or earlier.
>>
>> That is very different.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Amey
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This whole discussion has me really confused.  According to
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history <
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of
>>>> Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version reached
>>>> end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/
>>>> <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even show
>>>> Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
>>>> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 <
>>>> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
>>>> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates that
>>>> it also was dropped in 2015.
>>>>
>>>> So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors
>>>> who ship it support it?
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
>>>>>>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
>>>>>>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
>>>>>>> would prevent a security release.
>>>>>>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
>>>>>>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
>>>>>> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
>>>>>> drop-in replacement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome
>>>> to
>>>>> provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If
>>>>> your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing
>>>>> security issues to address...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jochen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ <
>>>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/>
>>>>>> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

Ralph Goers

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 1:35 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 5 June 2017 at 21:06, Ralph Goers <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> OK. Who cares if their last release was Java 1.5? They will never release another version that supports it.
>
> Not sure who you mean by 'they' here.

They is any component whose latest release is on Java 1.5.

>
> This thread is about Commons components whose latest release is 1.5 or
> earlier, and what to do about it now that Java 9+ no longer supports
> 1.5 as a compiler option.

The answer is clear. There is no problem using a component compiled for Java 5, so this discussion is only about performing new releases of things. Any component that has a latest release based on Java 5 will continue to lay dormant until someone wants to do a new release of it. If and when that happens the next release will use Java 6 or hopefully, Java 7 (since Java 6 has already reached end-of-life as well but has about another year before full end of support). There is no point in doing security fixes for anything based on Java 5 (or 6 in my opinion).

This discussion about Java 9 is just a red herring as it is forcing you to have a discussion you really shouldn’t need to have. This upgrade should have been forced eons ago.

Ralph

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Amey Jadiye

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Amey Jadiye <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> correct, moving to Java9 might be restricting 1.5 to run on higher
> versions, that said they may not run on java 9 so all this discussion came
> in picture, I wish we can have java 9 target well at the same time we
> should detach our self from java 1.5, just a view.
>
> Regards,

Java 5 artifacts should run just fine on Java 9 - with the exception that if they are using restricted classes they will fail.  That is really the only Java 9 issue to be concerned with, and is why it is going to take quite a bit of time for it to become mainstream.

Ralph



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compiler targets and Java 9

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 1:35 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 5 June 2017 at 21:06, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >> OK. Who cares if their last release was Java 1.5? They will never
> release another version that supports it.
> >
> > Not sure who you mean by 'they' here.
>
> They is any component whose latest release is on Java 1.5.
>
> >
> > This thread is about Commons components whose latest release is 1.5 or
> > earlier, and what to do about it now that Java 9+ no longer supports
> > 1.5 as a compiler option.
>
> The answer is clear. There is no problem using a component compiled for
> Java 5, so this discussion is only about performing new releases of things.
> Any component that has a latest release based on Java 5 will continue to
> lay dormant until someone wants to do a new release of it. If and when that
> happens the next release will use Java 6 or hopefully, Java 7 (since Java 6
> has already reached end-of-life as well but has about another year before
> full end of support). There is no point in doing security fixes for
> anything based on Java 5 (or 6 in my opinion).
>
> This discussion about Java 9 is just a red herring as it is forcing you to
> have a discussion you really shouldn’t need to have. This upgrade should
> have been forced eons ago.
>

+1

Gary


>
> Ralph
>
>
12