| Re: [jaxrs-dev] Java version |
_______________________________________________+1 for Flow API in 3.0, hence Java 9, 10 or 11
-1 for 2.2 enforcing Java 9 because we still have lots of customers who want to stick with 32 bit windows for another year
-Markus
From: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ondrej Mihályi
Sent: Samstag, 31. März 2018 14:32
To: jaxrs developer discussions; jaxrs developer discussions
Subject: Re: [jaxrs-dev] Java version
Another new thing in Java 9 is the Flow API. For v2.1, SSE support aimed to support Flow API because it's a natutal fit. But because it's not in Java 8 and there was little time to discuss it, support for Flow API in SSE was postponed.
I would like to see support for Flow API in SSE. If you really like that JAX-RS 2.2 requires only Java 8, then at least 3.0 should require Java 9 and integreate SSE and rx with the flow API. Even better if that was done for v2.2
Ondro
From: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:10:21 PM
To: jaxrs developer discussions
Subject: Re: [jaxrs-dev] Java version
+1 for an automatic module name.
Santiago, do you know if we'll be able to use the "java" namespace for the module name as this is an existing spec?
El vie., 30 mar. 2018 14:35, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
Well there actually is one thing in Java 9 that does not exist in Java 8: Modules. The JAX-RS EG dropped modules support back in JAX-RS 2.1 as we had to release BEFORE Java 9 was there. Having a module-info is beneficial to clarify how JAX-RS API behaves when running on Java 9. OTOH we could simply provide Automatic-Module-Name instead.
-Markus
From: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Niklas Mehner
Sent: Donnerstag, 29. März 2018 20:27
To: jaxrs developer discussions
Subject: Re: [jaxrs-dev] Java version
But is there anything in Java 9 that we actually need? We should probably build on Java 9 or 10 to verify that there are no problems with those, but dropping backwards compatibility without any need for it?
I guess it would be best to build JAX-RS 2.2 on Java 8 and 10.
2018-03-29 20:21 GMT+02:00 Christian Kaltepoth <christian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
I'm fine with adjusting the minimum Java version to 9 for JAX-RS 2.2.
But I think it is too early to talk about requirements for JAX-RS 3.0.
Am Do., 29. März 2018 um 20:12 Uhr schrieb Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx>:
AFAIK, *Oracle JDK 11* will be LTS, but at that point, only OpenJDK will remain free (which won't hace LTS).
So it's not Java 11 that will be LTS, but some specific implementations.
Btw, IBM already announced they plan to offer free LTS support for Eclipse OpenJ9 11.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
El jue., 29 mar. 2018 20:07, Niklas Mehner <niklas.mehner@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:
Should this not be Java 11 instead of Java 10 for 3.0? 10 is not a long term supported version. Java 10 EOL is already in September (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html ).
Best regards,
Niklas
2018-03-29 19:55 GMT+02:00 Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
I think it would be a good thing to use Java 10 for 3.0 and Java 8 for 2.2. The reason is that people would think they can drop-in 2.2 where currently 2.1 runs -- which is Java EE 8 containers.
-Markus
From: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Kaltepoth
Sent: Donnerstag, 29. März 2018 07:28
To: jaxrs developer discussions
Subject: [jaxrs-dev] Java version
Hi all,
I'm currently preparing the Travis CI configuration. As part of that, we have to decide against which java versions we want to run the build. Please note that we can run multiple builds against different versions in parallel.
I just had a look at the pom and I'm a bit confused about this part. If I read it correctly, the source code version is basically set to the version of the executing JDK. Does this make sense? It seems a bit weird. Isn't the source (and target) version usually the minimum Java version supported?
_______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev
_______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev_______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev
--
_______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev
_______________________________________________
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev
jaxrs-dev mailing list
jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev