Add support for Oracle Java 8

[marko-asplund]

issue #1048

[hamiltont]

Could you add the standard RETCODE bit, so that back-to-back calls of this file don't cause fairly large delays while we re-run apt-get for no reason.

Note: Instead of return 0, you need to run update-alternatives and then return 0

[hamiltont]

Looks exciting! I've asked for some minor changes above. In addition, could you also

• Add a small README here explaining that Java-based framewroks can use either fw_depends java (for orackel java 7) or fw_depends java8 for oracle java 8. Explain what the binaries are called (e.g. for java 7 most people call the java binary, should they do the same for java 8 or is it named differently?)
• Update java.sh to run update-alternatives and switch back to java-7 if necessary
• Is there any java-based framework you feel comfortable updating to java8? That way we could see if Travis-CI green-lights these changes

I'm very glad to see this being added!

[hamiltont]

Looks exciting! I've asked for some minor changes above. In addition, could you also

• Add a small README here explaining that Java-based framewroks can use either fw_depends java (for orackel java 7) or fw_depends java8 for oracle java 8. Explain what the binaries are called (e.g. for java 7 most people call the java binary, should they do the same for java 8 or is it named differently?)
• Update java.sh to run update-alternatives and switch back to java-7 if necessary
• Is there any java-based framework you feel comfortable updating to java8? That way we could see if Travis-CI green-lights these changes

I'm very glad to see this being added!

[marko-asplund]

@hamiltont AFAIK, I think this PR should be ok now.

I updated servlet3-cass in my local dev env to use java8. The tests seemed to be fine, but then I ran into some problems with Travis CI (see #1082) before committing these changes. I need to figure out what's causing the CI build to fail before updating the test implementation for Java 8.

[marko-asplund]

@hamiltont AFAIK, I think this PR should be ok now.

I updated servlet3-cass in my local dev env to use java8. The tests seemed to be fine, but then I ran into some problems with Travis CI (see #1082) before committing these changes. I need to figure out what's causing the CI build to fail before updating the test implementation for Java 8.

[hamiltont]

Cool. I'm out for the next few months, have a degree to prioritize. One of
the TE team can check this for you

[hamiltont]

Cool. I'm out for the next few months, have a degree to prioritize. One of
the TE team can check this for you

[marko-asplund]

@hamiltont Java 8 PR updated and merged with latest upstream master branch.

[marko-asplund]

@hamiltont Java 8 PR updated and merged with latest upstream master branch.

[hamiltont]

Cool, let's see what Travis has to say about it!

Note to self: see here

[hamiltont]

Cool, let's see what Travis has to say about it!

Note to self: see here

[marko-asplund]

This PR just adds a README + Java 8 installations script, so Travis shouldn't fail due to this. While I've tested this in my development sandbox and it seems to work, no test implementations have been updated to use Java 8, yet. I'm planning to do this as part of a separate PR.

[marko-asplund]

This PR just adds a README + Java 8 installations script, so Travis shouldn't fail due to this. While I've tested this in my development sandbox and it seems to work, no test implementations have been updated to use Java 8, yet. I'm planning to do this as part of a separate PR.

[hamiltont]

Oh, ok. Then there's nothing to wait on for this PR I guess. Visual inspection LGTM, I'll go ahead and merge this and look forward to a PR actually using it

[hamiltont]

Oh, ok. Then there's nothing to wait on for this PR I guess. Visual inspection LGTM, I'll go ahead and merge this and look forward to a PR actually using it

[marko-asplund]

great, thanks!

Issue #1048 is basically a duplicate of this, so it can be closed as well.
(this one was created because I couldn't figure how to associate my PR with the existing issue)

[marko-asplund]

great, thanks!

Issue #1048 is basically a duplicate of this, so it can be closed as well.
(this one was created because I couldn't figure how to associate my PR with the existing issue)

[hamiltont]

@marko-asplund just to be clear, there's no reason that a framework cannot use fw_depends java java8 to install both, and then just use a full path to the binary they want, right?

Perhaps we should add that to the readme, or I predict a lot of duplicated folders (e.g. java-stuffand java-stuff-java8)

[hamiltont]

@marko-asplund just to be clear, there's no reason that a framework cannot use fw_depends java java8 to install both, and then just use a full path to the binary they want, right?

Perhaps we should add that to the readme, or I predict a lot of duplicated folders (e.g. java-stuffand java-stuff-java8)

[marko-asplund]

Yes, that should be totally ok.
The Java 8 installation script tries hard to retain OpenJDK 7 as the default instead of Oracle JDK 8.

[marko-asplund]

Yes, that should be totally ok.
The Java 8 installation script tries hard to retain OpenJDK 7 as the default instead of Oracle JDK 8.