cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: New Java 9 master
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2017 03:40:14 GMT


> On Nov 16, 2017, at 6:02 AM, Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> 
> I am not sure sure about the need for Java 9 modules. Currently I see no
> user requesting this.

We need a user to request it?  Whats wrong with us looking in a crystal ball?  Doesn’t one
of our own committers count as a user requesting it?

> It is also not yet fully clear how these modules
> behave in OSGi.

They are just jars with manifests, no?  I would believe they would both operate based on their
own manifest file contents.  Let stay it and find out. ;-). No harm no foul.

> As far as I understood as soon as we start with this we
> have code that is not working in Java 8. As we require every change to be
> done in master first this means we have a lot of back port work. A Java 9
> only master will also make it much harder for Java 8 users to supply pull
> requests as they have to develop and test on java 9 which is not their
> production system.

How is this any different than what we have done in the past with our multiple versions? CXF
for JDK9 with modules… perhaps a CXF 4?
> 
> So I think the current situation with a master that works on Java 9 and
> Java 8 is a pretty good situation that we should keep for as long as
> possible.
> I am not sure how attractive the other Java 9 features are. Personally I
> were really eager to adopt Java 8 because of the closures but I see no real
> need for myself to rush to java 9.
> 

But others do use it.  I'm one of those who did go all in JDK 9… call me a cutting edge
person. ;-). I have people asking me all the time about this.  Different strokes for different
folks. ;-)

> When I remember how reluctant we were when it came to adopting the previous
> java versions like 7 and 8 as minimal requirement I think it makes sense to
> do this rather slowly.

And what did that reluctancy buy us except people wondering what is taking so long.  Why not
get ahead of the curve this time instead of being dinosaurs and the last ones to the table.

Whats the harm in doing it?  Its just a git repo that has zero impact on the Java 8 code base.
 Everything will feed it as an upstream code base.

I’m not getting why the pushback..

Jeff


> 
> Christian
> 
> 2017-11-16 13:31 GMT+01:00 Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>:
> 
>> Hi Andriy
>> 
>> I'm only presuming that yes, a Java 9 only master would have to support
>> the new Java 9 modules system, so I'd say a lot of exciting work would
>> await for the CXF dev community :-)
>> 
>> Cheers, Sergey
>> 
>> On 16/11/17 12:19, Andriy Redko wrote:
>> 
>>> Hey Sergey,
>>> 
>>> Do we have a goal to support Java 9 modules (aka Jigsaw) for
>>> the new master branch? Or we just looking to benefit from the
>>> latest changes in stardand library (as you mentioned, Flow & Co,
>>> collections are also a good example)? Is our current master JDK9
>>> compatible actually (haven't seen successfull builds from
>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/CXF-Master-JDK9) ?
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>>     Andriy Redko
>>> 
>>> SB> It's pretty simple really. It's about having a new impetus for the CXF
>>> SB> development.
>>> 
>>> SB> Without a Java 9 only master CXF will be about fixing the bugs only.
>>> SB> JAX-WS is done long time ago, next version of JAX-RS will take N
>>> amount
>>> SB> of time to materialize.
>>> 
>>> SB> Java 9 with its Flow class will let CXF do new work around Reactive
>>> SB> support. It will have new features that only work with Java 9 and may
>>> SB> give new ideas for the contributions.
>>> 
>>> SB> 3.2.x is at the start of its life-cycle and will have a couple of
>>> years
>>> SB> at least for it to retire, giving Java 8 support.
>>> 
>>> SB> 3.1.x has probably 6 months or so left in it, and after it's gone we
>>> SB> will have 3.2.x and 4.0.x or whatever new version is preferred.
>>> 
>>> SB> Sergey
>>> SB> On 16/11/17 08:15, Dennis Kieselhorst wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2017-11-16 07:27, Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I dont think we can already predict when users move to Java 9.
>>>>>> So creating a Java 9 only branch at this time means we have to
>>>>>> maintain two
>>>>>> main branches over a long time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What is the rationale behind a Java 9 only branch compared to being
>>>>>> Java 9
>>>>>> and Java 8 compatible on master?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also don't see a good reason to do that at the moment. Let's release
>>>>> the XJC plugin and users should be able to use CXF with Java 9 or am
I
>>>>> missing something?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Dennis
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> <https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de>
> 
> Computer Scientist
> http://www.adobe.com


Mime
View raw message