UP-3610: Force the build to use JDK7 #86

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
Owner

mmoayyed commented Nov 10, 2012

No description provided.

Owner

steveswinsburg commented Nov 10, 2012

Do we really want to force JDK7? AFAIK there isn't an automatic package for OS X yet and other projects may not be compatible with 7 yet.

Sent from my iPhone

On 11/11/2012, at 7:26, Misagh Moayyed notifications@github.com wrote:

You can merge this Pull Request by running:

git pull https://github.com/mmoayyed/uPortal UP-3610
Or view, comment on, or merge it at:

#86

Commit Summary

UP-3610: Force the build to use JDK7
File Changes

M pom.xml (6)
Patch Links

https://github.com/Jasig/uPortal/pull/86.patch
https://github.com/Jasig/uPortal/pull/86.diff

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Owner

edalquist commented Nov 12, 2012

We will bring it up on the list but I'm for moving to JDK7 for 4.1

Also Java 7 for OSX can be downloaded here: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre7-downloads-1637588.html

Owner

steveswinsburg commented Nov 12, 2012

By all means support Java 7, but is it necessary to require it? What new features will be leveraged that Java 6 doesn't have?
My concern is that other Java based applications that Jasig/Apereo will support may not yet support Java 7, so forcing people onto it may be premature at this stage. Unless there are new features that need to be used of course.

Sent from my iPhone

On 12/11/2012, at 15:21, Eric Dalquist notifications@github.com wrote:

We will bring it up on the list but I'm for moving to JDK7 for 4.1

Also Java 7 for OSX can be downloaded here: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre7-downloads-1637588.html


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Owner

mmoayyed commented Nov 12, 2012

The main driver for this, at least from my POV is, that JDK6 is going to be EOL soon, if not already. I am not sure which features would be applicable just yet, but it's better to have the support in there just in case.

..and of course, in discussing uportal requirements with a number of clients, they have expressed concern over the EOL nature of JDK6 supported by the platform. Most schools have the JDK upgrade on their maintenance cycle. So to officially support it would give them more confidence in going ahead with the upgrade cycle rather than just providing assurance that "yes, it works but it's not officially supported" :)

Owner

steveswinsburg commented Nov 13, 2012

There is a big difference between supporting Java 7, ie making sure the build works and having many developers, testers and adopting institutions using it, and forcing users to have it installed. It is non trivial to run two JDKs at the same time and you will cause a major headache for anyone that develops for other software that isn't yet Java 7 ready.

If there is no major technical reason for it to be moved to (ie "I absolutely have to use feature X that is only in Java 7 and I can't do it any other way") then I'd suggest ensuring Java 7 is actively and officially supported (by using it), but not introducing any new features that depend on it just yet and ensuring the build still works in Java 6.

BTW the EOL of Java 6 has been extended to February 2013.

On 13/11/2012, at 3:38 AM, Misagh Moayyed notifications@github.com wrote:

The main driver for this, at least from my POV is, that JDK6 is going to be EOL soon, if not already. I am not sure which features would be applicable just yet, but it's better to have the support in there just in case.

..and of course, in discussing uportal requirements with a number of clients, they have expressed concern over the EOL nature of JDK6 supported by the platform. Most schools have the JDK upgrade on their maintenance cycle. So to officially support it would give them more confidence in going ahead with the upgrade cycle rather than just providing assurance that "yes, it works but it's not officially supported" :)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Contributor

agrabovskis commented Nov 13, 2012

Java 7 compatibility is needed, but it should not be as prerequisite in order to give some time for gradual migration.

Owner

edalquist commented Nov 13, 2012

It will be talked about on the dev list first. Remember, 4.1 is at least 6 months away if not more.

Owner

edalquist commented May 15, 2013

No need to force the switch until we actually need a JDK7 API in master

@edalquist edalquist closed this May 15, 2013

apetro added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment