maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
Date Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:46:52 GMT
On 7 February 2013 08:58, Chris Graham <chrisgwarp@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 07/02/2013, at 6:59 PM, Baptiste MATHUS <ml@batmat.net> wrote:
>
> > Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, "Chris Graham" <chrisgwarp@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>
> >> Hey All.
> >>
> >> Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
> >>
> >> Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something
> shiny
> >> and new,
> >
> > Please. Can we stop using that kind of father-ish formulation? That's not
> > the first time.
> > It makes it sound like "meeh, it happened again. Those /developers/ kids
> > not getting what business is about just did it again...".
> >
> >> I do find that the current 1.5 based Maven is more than sufficient
> >> for our needs.
> >>
> >> I lot of responses about the upgrade are normally around the "just
> upgrade
> >> the java" (assuming that I am running under tomcat of similar [if only
> it
> >> was so simple as that!]).
> >>
> >> I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
> >> currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
> >> nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
> > been
> >> extended* by a year!
> >>
> >> Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd
> quite a
> >> while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
> >> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
> >>
> >> Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
>

Can you get a 1.6+ JRE on there? In other words, use 1.6 or 1.7 to run
Maven and use toolchains to fork down to the 1.5 JDK for compiling and
running tests.


> >>
> >> The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
> >>
> >> The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
> > data
> >> centres. So simply stating "just upgrade java" (assuming that it is
> > running
> >> under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
> >
> > Twice in a row. What's the issue with products that eases your life when
> it
> > comes to upgrading things?
> >
>
> Not at all. It's a matter of scale and support.
>
> We have one client who has 3,500 instances of WAS running and no tomcat.
>
> We are not going to retrain the (thousands) of support staff (globally) to
> support a new product easily (or cheaply), especially when you generally
> have multiple different buckets of money for dev, support maint and BAU.
>
>
> >>
> >> Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I suspect
> >> that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of us
> >> will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
> >> simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
> >
> > I'm not sure I perfectly see your point. We also use aix and jenkins and
> > Maven, and it's possible as anywhere else to install many JDK versions on
> > an IBM/aix server. You're then not forced to use the same JDK version for
> > your builds and for running your jenkins server.
>
> That may work in some cases. Agreed. But perhaps not all. Thinking ESB and
> BPM builds here; I'll need to think about that one.
>

Sounds like either defects in Toolchains or the plugins used for those
builds do not understand toolchains.

Long term we need to get those issues resolved, because like it or not, at
*some stage* we need to move off of 1.5 and onwards to 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8.

I am against moving up "just because". However I am all in favour of moving
up "because XYZ".

For me invalid reasons to move to as a runtime requirement 1.6 are things
like:

* I cannot get a 1.5 JDK on my chosen development machine => configure
animal-sniffer

* There is a compiler bug in generics that means that some of the generics
I want to introduce into Maven's APIs will not compile on JDK 1.5 => that
is a valid reason to require 1.6 as a build maven requirement, but
animal-sniffer can let us keep 1.5 as a run-time requirement.

Valid reasons to move to 1.6 are things like:

* This 3rd party dependency we use has a bug that needs fixing, they have
fixed it in version V.W but that artifact is using 1.6 bytecode so we
either keep the bug or upgrade the dependency and consequently upgrade the
minimum required JVM to run Maven.

* There is a big feature that I want to implement and it will be 10 times
easier to write and maintain with the language features in 1.6

My point is I am 100% fine with us upping the requirement to 1.6 or 1.7. I
just want a *good* reason... doesn't have to be a *big* reason... just a
good one.

-STephen


> >>
> >> I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and are
> >> unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure
> > would
> >> be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
> >
> > I'm thinking that'd certainly be averaged with versions bigger than JDK5
> > also not reporting.
> >
> >>
> >> So, please do not cut us off from future updates.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Manfred Moser <manfred@mosabuam.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Totally agree... if people really need to build for older Java runtimes
> >>> they still can..  but if Oracle thinks they dont want to support JDK <
> > 1.7
> >>> without getting paid why would the Maven project do it ;-)
> >>>
> >>> For now 1.6 seems just fine and I would even say a jump to 1.7 in the
> > next
> >>> year or three (;-)) would be reasonable..
> >>>
> >>> manfred
> >>>
> >>>> +1, bump to JDK6 minimum for Maven.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2013/2/6 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to
> >>>>> co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better
> > (that
> >>>>> way
> >>>>> we catch up with the model version ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 6 February 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>> As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that
> > (again).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> NOTE: That will probably need a vote. So depending on how the
> > thread
> >>>>>> move, I will start a vote (or not).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;>
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>>> dev-help@maven.apache.org<javascript:;>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net
> >>>>> Sauvez un arbre,
> >>>>> Mangez un castor ! nbsp;!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message