maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tibor Digana <tibor.dig...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Building a Java9 project just using JDK9
Date Sun, 13 Aug 2017 15:29:24 GMT
But why to add it? It's a hack. I do not use module-info.java and so there
is no reason to break the backwards compatibility.

This is no more about Maven. It is about entire Java world.
If we in Maven do it then everybody has to.
And I am sure that the voices says that Kotlin is better and Scala is
better would make sense. Why to help these attempts to happen? No reason!

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is there a Maven way to add ALL-SYSTEM to everything? Using plugin specific
> tags like below is going to be painful.
>
> Gary
>
> On Aug 13, 2017 07:30, "Tibor Digana" <tibordigana@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi @Enrico,
> >
> > I am very unhappy with Java 9 status and very afraid.
> > I do not like the style how Oracle has changed Java to Java 9 and forced
> > all the world to use additional effort to adapt to Oracle activities.
> >
> > I am facing more unhappy Java development teams with Java 9 in the
> future.
> > For instance as I have tried to implement users wish in Maven Surefire
> > project and invested my personal time and effort to adapt to Oracle
> > requirements, this still does not convince me to say that Java 9 is ready
> > to go.
> >
> > This is my comment from Jira:
> >
> > "This is not nice on Java 9 that they broke backwards compatibility and
> > force the world to use the switch to use --add-modules ALL-SYSTEM instead
> > of providing all modules installed in JRE. For instance, small JRE having
> > {{java.base}} has advantage on embedded systems and the only should be
> > propagated. Big scope JRE should propagate all installed modules.
> > But for me it does not make security sense and common sense to force JRE
> to
> > provide modules. It should be opposite and the admin/Jenkins should
> > configure big scope JRE with selected modules propagated to Java runtime
> > applications.
> > If this admin does not do that then all modules should be available by
> > default which is backwards compatibility for me and we do not have to to
> > implement these stupid tricks."
> >
> > As far as we remember Java Security, the policies can be configured.
> > I can imaging same paradigm in Jigsaw/Java 9 and then the admin who has
> > installed JDK or JRE would "switch off" some modules. But opposite, that
> > means the script which starts Java app currently enables "all" modules is
> > against security and against the principle of modular system because the
> > modules do not make sense then.
> >
> > What makes sense to me is to enable "all java/javax" modules except for
> the
> > "com.sun" proprietary ones by default.
> > So yes enable them by default and please release specific JRE
> installations
> > with specific bunch of Java modules for specific use cases.
> > This means those modules in that particular release are all enabled by
> > default if not configured otherwise by admin, e.g. Jenkins, operation
> > staff, etc. (do NOT mean Sun packages - never visible).
> >
> > Here it comes. The idea that we can install small 5MB/JRE on small Linux
> > device would be possible because Oracle would release such tiny JRE using
> > only "java.lang" and then another JRE installation using java.lang and
> > java.utils, and later NIO and later "java.desktop", etc.
> >
> > Then vendors of web browsers and Linux dist would be happy to integrate
> > small JRE into and use JavaFX.
> >
> > But now it is not possible because the modules are basically three:
> >
> > java.base == 37MB
> > java.desktop == 36MB
> > java.xml ==20MB
> >
> > All the other modules are pretty small but these three seen in "src.zip"
> > make the modular system unbalanced in size and nobody would ever wish to
> > integrate them because they are still big. That means the problem that
> > Oracle has with NIO implementation in com.sun package propagated to
> > "java.util", nobody in the world care and nobody should see as a problem
> to
> > split "java.base" much more.
> >
> > If splitting "java.base" happened then not certified JVMs developed at
> > Universities would for instance implement only "java.lang" and embed it
> in
> > to JVM and develop a new programming language on the top of Java. But
> > implementing 10 packages in java.base is an effort again.
> >
> >
> >
> > One more thing is regarding the size of the modules.
> > You really did not help embedded systems and installations of browsers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to share my current pom configuration which lets me to
> > > build and test java8 apps on latest and greatest jdk9
> > >
> > > This profile is activated when using jdk9.
> > >
> > > This is based on a suggestion of Robert, its suggestion for the
> > > javadoc plugin is working great with surefire too
> > >
> > > <profile>
> > >             <id>jdk9</id>
> > >             <activation>
> > >                 <jdk>[9,)</jdk>
> > >             </activation>
> > >             <build>
> > >                 <plugins>
> > >                     <plugin>
> > >                         <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> > >                         <artifactId>maven-javadoc-plugin</artifactId>
> > >                         <configuration>
> > >                             <additionalparam>--add-modules
> > > ALL-SYSTEM</additionalparam>
> > >                         </configuration>
> > >                     </plugin>
> > >                     <plugin>
> > >                         <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> > >                         <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
> > >                         <version>2.20</version>
> > >                         <configuration>
> > >                             <argLine>--add-modules ALL-SYSTEM</argLine>
> > >                         </configuration>
> > >                     </plugin>
> > >                 </plugins>
> > >             </build>
> > >         </profile>
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-04-24 19:08 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarbaise@gmx.de>:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > yes I will do within this week...
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> > > > On 23/04/17 21:37, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you Robert,
> > > >> I saw that you have merged my patch.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is there any plan to release the new version of the war plugin?
> > > >>
> > > >> Enrico
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Il gio 13 apr 2017, 12:21 Paul Hammant <paul@hammant.org> ha
> scritto:
> > > >>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I don't see any activity either, so my idea is to replace
> XStream,
> > > see
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MWAR-397[1]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Just for the record, Jörg is working through the Java9 issues
for
> > > XStream
> > > >>> presently - https://github.com/x-stream/xstream/commits/master
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Cheers
Tibor

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