jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konrad Windszus <konra...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: FileVault: Require Java 8
Date Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:27:28 GMT
I am a bit confused,
Jackrabbit 2.16 requires Java 8 already and was already required with filevault 3.2.8 (https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-filevault/blob/5104a49b4b0fcd25bfbcc202734cca490e55765d/parent/pom.xml#L43)
Oak 1.6 on the other hand still supports Java 7 (it depends on Jackrabbit 2.14 -> https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/024278e1e33935bb30729a36252a1c93cc0e0d18/oak-parent/pom.xml#L45)

So why is the combination of Oak 1.6 / Jackrabbit 2.16 necessary? I would understand Oak 1.6
/ Jackrabbit 2.14 (AEM 6.3, still supports Java 7).
What should we now target for the next 3.x release?

Thanks,
Konrad

> On 26. Aug 2019, at 19:54, Tobias Bocanegra <tripod@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The problem is, that we need oak 1.6 / jackrabbit 2.16 compatible version of filevault.
I think that
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-340 might already changed that. If so, we
need to update
> The major version and jump to 4.0.0, if filevault no longer works with oak 1.16. 
> And then we also need to start a dedicated 3.x branch for back ports.
> 
> Regards, Toby
> 
> 
>> On 26 Aug 2019, at 05:00, Konrad Windszus <konrad_w@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, currently FileVault is still supporting Java 7.
>> But with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-344 we implicitly require Java
8 (due to the dependency towards Oak 1.16 and Jackrabbit 2.18).
>> Is it fine if with the next release version (3.2.10) we require Java 8? Or should
we rather increase the second digit, i.e. release 3.4.0?
>> 
>> Is Filevault using the same Odd/Even release policy as Jackrabbit/Oak?
>> 
>> In any case I would strongly recommend to upgrade then also the FileVault Maven Plugin
to Java 8.
>> WDYT?
>> Konrad
>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message