commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject Re: Prepare commons to JDK 9
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2018 04:12:59 GMT
Hi All:

On a slightly different tack, I think that it is way to early to require
Java 9 for ANY Commons components.

I see a case for updating all components to at least Java 7, and hopefully

What you will likely hear from some quarters are comments of the type "What
feature of Java X is required for a better Commons Y".

Note that from my POV, MR Jars are a catastrophe, breaking tool chains left
and right and I will avoid these like the plague until tools support that
feature through and through, especially Android; as well as the myriad of
Maven plugins that might blow up by looking at class files in the "wrong"
place (META-INF).

The least worst solution is to do the minimum for jars to play in the Java
9 module system, which should not require Java 9 byte codes.

Another item to chew on: There is no LTS plans from Oracle for Java 9 AND
10, in fact the next LTS is for Java 11. So it seems to me then that Java
>=9 and < 11 is a moving target and I would not bend over backward for
anything in that range. Not yet at least.


On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Kamila Molina Orellana <> wrote:

> Dear all,
> As an idea for GSoC that came up in [1], we want to settle some guidelines
> that other commons projects might follow to make the shift. We came up with
> some ideas in [2]. I wanted to ask about some experience you have had while
> moving to JDK 9 in other commons-projects.
> I wanted to propose this:
>    1. Make the movement of commons-rdf to JDK 9 generating modules
>    descriptions automatically through Maven.
>    2. Generate integration tests to guarantee that modules are working as
>    expected with JDK 9.
>    3. Maybe have multi-release JARs?
> Since other commons projects follow a similar structure, we can generate
> some documentation in a wiki-like media. So, they can make the shit to JPMS
> or at least have a guideline. Or I can contribute :D.
> Wha do you think?
> Regards,
> ~Kamila.
> [1]
> [2]

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