It’s a good idea. I will caution that not all new Java releases are equal. Sometimes it’s easy to argue that the language changes are sufficiently compelling to update, sometimes they aren’t.
McQ.
From:
jdt-dev <jdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Timothy Spear <n614cd@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 at 09:43
To: Eclipse JDT general developers list. <jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jdt-dev] [eclipse-pmc] Java 11 runtime support in ecj in 4.28
I have seen this discussion a few times over the years. Instead of having to reach consensus every couple of years as a version reaches end of life from a support
perspective; has the team ever considered having a guideline/policy on the required
|
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
|
|
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
|
|
|
I have seen this discussion a few times over the years. Instead of having to reach consensus every couple of years as a version reaches end of life from a support perspective; has the team ever considered
having a guideline/policy on the required version?
Apologies for taking a while to respond to this. I wanted to review some of the IBM product usage of ECJ before commenting. I know now that there
are potentially cases that would be problematic given IBM’s long term support requirements. I mention this only to show that my organization will be impacted by our decision.
In any case, I’m always torn between following the “tradition” of the Eclipse Project, which has been to write our code in a style that has wide compatibility
with back versions, versus using all the Java language as it has grown to become. That’s a separate question from what version we compile/build against, but it does have some impact here: The more new Java lang features are used, the harder it is for support
teams to backport fixes to older versions of products. Oh well.
After all that, guess I’ll say I am a cautious +1 for moving to Java 17.
McQ.
+1 for moving to Java 17 On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10: 28 PM Lars Vogel <lars. vogel@ vogella. com> wrote: +1 for moving to Java 17 Andrey
Loskutov <loskutov@ gmx. de> schrieb am Do. , 23. März 2023, 19: 53: Hi PMC, we have a lovely discussion
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
This message came from outside your organization.
|
|
|
+1 for moving to Java 17
+1 for moving to Java 17
Hi PMC,
Would be nice if we could have PMC resolution/decision on this question soon.
Short summary of the problem:
ECJ, as standalone compiler library, could in theory still stay and support execution on Java 11.
The controversial proposal that requires resolution is: ECJ released with 4.28 would also require
at least Java 17 for execution.
Note: Compilation *targets* are not affected by that, ecj will still support compilation down to Java
8 JLS.
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
_______________________________________________
jdt-dev mailing list
jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
--
_______________________________________________
jdt-dev mailing list
jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
|
