> Hi All,
> Are we facing new API regarding networking and security useful in Java 8?
> When I first saw these options I asked myself what benefit would have the
> User and Jenkins from Java 8.
> And second question was whether we would be so flexible to rewrite the code
> and use Lambda fully anywhere in the code.
There is the social aspect. If you are a potential new contributor to Maven
and you look at our heavy Java 1.3 convention codebase (ok, I'm being a
demagogue, it's had a bit updated to 5.0) are you going to be encouraged to
How can you make small improvements and demonstrate you are a safe pair of
hands to gain the commit bit?
Now if we have the opertunity to make lots of tidy up and you can show you
are a safe pair of hands, retaining binary compatibility with older
plugins, making the code more readable, finding file handle leaks, etc...
well now you have a welcome path to demonstrate your skills.... while
gaining familiarity with the codebase so that when we turn around to start
on Maven 5.0.x you can join in the fun.
Now that is not a technical argument, but we are a community first... so
maybe the technical arguments are not so right to push!
> So I kept Java 7 for Maven 3.6 which does not mean that Maven 4 or 5 would
> not change this.
> Regarding security everybody can use JDK 8 with old Maven but different
> story would be enhancements in Networking API.
Yes, but shouldn't we stop them using the known bad Java 7 if they want the
latest maven? If they don't care about security, then they'll likely not
upgrade Maven either... so why worry about keeping Java 7 for them... when
they do get around to upgrading they'll do it all in bulk anyway... so
asking them to go Java 8 at that time will not be an issue... plus we do
them a favour by being another reason to upgrade ;-)
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
> > So what would be the conclusion?
> > 35% want to keep Java7 as JRE for Maven for a shorter or longer period?
> > IMHO that's a lot
> > Robert
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 11:55:20 +0200, Stephen Connolly <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > So poll results:
> >> 493 votes cast
> >> 25% want Java 7,8&9 for Maven 3.6.x
> >> 65% want Java 8&9 for Maven 3.6.x
> >> 10% want Java 8&9 for Maven 3.6.x and 6 months of backporting to 3.5.x
> >> On Sat 9 Sep 2017 at 11:50, Stephen Connolly <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> https://twitter.com/asfmavenproject/status/906451059966693376 > >>> --
> >>> Sent from my phone
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > >
I was pragmatic and did not want to push users to use Maven&Java8 only
because JDK 7 is weak.
First the interest should go from inside, this means API and then users.
I agree with Michael whether we should better focus on Maven 4 and POM
For instance today everybody could notice on mailing list that we are in
hurry with Jigsaw support, me too! It does not mean for me Java 9, nothing
but Jigsaw's modularity because this goes with Users - my second question
(first was API). So yes this makes sense to spend the time in Jigsaw
however I am the one who does not like Oracle's style of pushing the
release and breaking their rules that Java SE release is aligned with Java
EE release where Java EE 8 is not yet out. And I am not talking about the
facts that Oracle's Patent of SE will be cheaper but developers more angry
in 9 and 10 because I know what they plan to do!
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Am 2017-09-10 um 19:07 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>> Hervé and I discussed on irc earlier today.
>> My suggestion - I was going to write up tomorrow - is that we drop 7 for
>> We should focus 3.6.x on making the codebase Java 8 (lambdas, replace
>> File____Stream with the non-file handle leak version, adopt Path, etc)
>> a view to encourage contributions... and best support for Java 9 (such
>> if you run j9 we recommend 3.6.x)
> This will take months to properly rewrite Maven core. I'd rather see this
> for Maven 4 and continue to polish Maven with 3.5.x, 3.6.x, etc.
> Unless no one will do this within a short timeframe, I see no benefit here.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] >