Skip to content

Conversation

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@jbonofre jbonofre merged commit a20d7db into apache:main Oct 24, 2021
@jbonofre jbonofre deleted the AMQ-8408 branch October 24, 2021 15:58
@gemmellr
Copy link
Member

Changing the target level back seems quite odd. Especially given it goes against all prior discussion I can think of, and all of that happened even before Java 17 released.

The JVMs used to run and test are the most important. It is only being tested on 11 it seems, so I think that should be the target, and that is was what was discussed multiple times previously I believe.

Its perhaps 2 years since you raised a PR to use a dependency you knew required Java 9, just before intendending to release 5.16.0. You then started a discussion thread on JVM versions after I suggested that seemed like a change worth discussing, given 5.16.0 was forever in the making and was already supposed to have been released by the time of the PR. You concluded that thread with summary that it was agreeed 5.16.0 would continue targeting 8, but 5.17.0+ would target Java 9+. I belive other discussions since did the same.

It was so discussed already that the website was updated several months ago now to say that 5.17.0 requires Java 11.

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member Author

I don't understand. We build with jdk 11. No problem to set back target/source to 11 but it's unrelated to the version we are using to build and develop. I will update to 11 anyway, but I don't see the point.

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member Author

Ok to update back to target/source to 11.

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member Author

Well actually you are right : we announced jdk 11 min for both build and run with ActiveMQ 5.17, so it makes sense to force it. I will set it back to 11 then. Sorry about that.

@gemmellr
Copy link
Member

The discussion was to target 11.

Even if it wasnt, the target version is still quite related to what we build and develop with. If noone is ever testing it works on 8, we simply shouldnt be targetting 8. Especially when the javac 'release' flag isnt being used in the build, meaning it can quite happilly emit bytecode that doesnt even work on the target JVM when cross-compiling.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants