Drop Java 8 #488

mkurz · 2022-09-29T13:38:55Z

No description provided.

cchantep

I'm not really ok with that. There are still project using Java8, and that doesn't have a notable cost for Anorm.

mkurz · 2022-09-29T15:33:59Z

Hmm.. We decided to drop Java 8 for Play, see playframework/playframework#11078. The problem is more and more libraries Play depends on are not getting published anymore for Java 8, see https://github.com/playframework/playframework/issues?q=author%3Ascala-steward+label%3Atopic%3Ajdk-next+is%3Aclosed+
Also slick just dropped support for Java 8: slick/slick#2557

I guess, as soon as we publish Play with artifacts that are build with bytecode for Java 11+ you will have a problem with anorm (?) since you depend on Play libraries.
We can wait to merge this here, but in the end I think there will not really be a choice.
I know some projects still use Java 8, but there are no public releases anymore and more projects dropping it already...

mkurz · 2022-09-29T16:08:52Z

project/Common.scala

+    },
+    scalacOptions ++= {
+      if (scalaBinaryVersion.value != "2.11") {
+        Seq("-release", "11")


Instead of -target we should use -release, which however is not availabe in Scala 2.11. Bad news is in Scala 2.11 we can not set -target to Java 11:

$ scalac -version Scala compiler version 2.11.8 -- Copyright 2002-2016, LAMP/EPFL $ scalac -help ... -target:<target> Target platform for object files. All JVM 1.5 targets are deprecated. (jvm-1.5,jvm-1.6,jvm-1.7,jvm-1.8) default:jvm-1.6

So... if we drop Java 8 for anorm... we might also should think about dropping Scala 2.11? The last release was cut 5 years ago...

To be honest I would even drop Scala 2.12... build.sbt does lot of conditional stuff to make everyhing work. I think it's time to move on for people. Scala 2.13 has been out for a long time already and it just gets harder and harder to support older Scala and Java releases...

BTW: I do not se a reason to not set release for Scala 3, should be totally fine.

ihostage · 2022-09-29T16:11:58Z

Anorm 2.6.x and 2.7.x still support Java 8, right?
If yes, I think it's a good compromise with the ability to move forward 🚀

mkurz · 2022-09-29T16:13:10Z

Anorm 2.6.x and 2.7.x still support Java 8, right?

Yes, I am now just working against the main branch. So there could still be new 2.7.x releases with support for Java 8 (and Scala 2.11)

mkurz · 2022-09-29T16:40:54Z

build.sbt

@@ -371,7 +371,8 @@ lazy val docs = project
    libraryDependencies ++= Seq(
      "com.typesafe.play" %% "play-jdbc"   % playVer.value % Test,
      "com.typesafe.play" %% "play-specs2" % playVer.value % Test,
-      "com.h2database"     % "h2"          % "1.4.199"
+      "com.google.inject" % "guice" % "5.1.0" % Test, // TODO: Remove when depending on play-jdbc/-specs2 2.8.x+


playVer is 2.6.14.... So need to pull in newer Guice version that works with Java 17... It's only in test scope however. But I think this needs more refactoring...

mkurz · 2022-09-29T16:48:35Z

At least the pr is green now. I will convert it to a draft pull request. We can wait to merge it at the very end, after Play has a release with Java 11+ only support.

cchantep · 2022-09-29T22:26:42Z

Hmm.. We decided to drop Java 8 for Play, see playframework/playframework#11078. The problem is more and more libraries Play depends on are not getting published anymore for Java 8, see https://github.com/playframework/playframework/issues?q=author%3Ascala-steward+label%3Atopic%3Ajdk-next+is%3Aclosed+ Also slick just dropped support for Java 8: slick/slick#2557

I guess, as soon as we publish Play with artifacts that are build with bytecode for Java 11+ you will have a problem with anorm (?) since you depend on Play libraries. We can wait to merge this here, but in the end I think there will not really be a choice. I know some projects still use Java 8, but there are no public releases anymore and more projects dropping it already...

I'm strongly against that choice.
I would rather cut the dependencies (not many) that would be broken.

ihostage · 2022-09-30T09:11:03Z

@cchantep Cedric, are you against with drop support Java 8 for Play or for Anorm?

mkurz · 2022-09-30T09:13:52Z

The problem is a lot of people support dropping Java 8 in Play, see playframework/playframework#11078

I would rather cut the dependencies (not many) that would be broken.

This is not possbile, some essential libraries do not publish Java 8 anymore. This is also becoming a security problem if we can not upgrade libraries anymore....
I think we have to realize that it's time to move on... We can not support Java 8 forever.

@cchantep Do you run applications on Java 8? Is it a problem to move to at least Java 11?

ihostage · 2022-09-30T09:26:06Z

This is not possbile, some essential libraries do not publish Java 8 anymore. This is also becoming a security problem if we can not upgrade libraries anymore....

Matthias, it's not only with security updates. We needs a new versions of libraries (like Guice) for support a new version of Java (for example 17). And if we want that Play might be work with a new Java versions we must drop support old versions 🤷‍♂️ We can't sit on two chairs at the same time 🤷‍♂️
But of course, Play 2.8 and Anorm 2.6/2.7 can run on Java 8 as now.

cchantep · 2022-09-30T11:36:20Z

@ihostage @mkurz Thanks for the feedbacks.

are you against with drop support Java 8 for Play or for Anorm?

I would say both. But much more against for the standalone library like Anorm, Play-JSON and Play-WS, where on one side a compatibility is lost and on this otherwise currently the compatibility is already there with quite no cost.

Do you run applications on Java 8? Is it a problem to move to at least Java 11?

I'm not the only one. I cannot always (unfortunately) chose the JVM version.

We can not support Java 8 forever

As long as enterprise are still deploying Java 8 (and against there is quite no cost to maintain the compatiblity).

If some really one some artifact specifically built for late JVM, then rather add a cross build with a specific artifact name.

With all the community drama the past years, and the drastic impact on Play projects, dropping compatibility really doesn't seem going in the right way for me.

mkurz · 2022-09-30T14:46:10Z

It's not always so easy. If we want to support newer Java versions, we probably just have to drop older ones.
For example have a look at playframework/play-doc#155: It is upgrading parboiled to support Java 17. Now, the problem is, only the latest release supports Java 16+, but at the same time dropped support for Java 8, please see: sirthias/parboiled#195 So what should we do now? Such things are happen more and more...
A lot of people asking when will Play finally support Java 17, but basically no one was against dropping Java 8. We announced that along time ago: https://twitter.com/playframework/status/1513823030904082440 (no negative reactions). Also on playframework/playframework#11078 just positive reactions.
Also, we are "just" setting the baseline to Java 11 now. Spring 6 will be much more aggressive and will require Java 17: https://spring.io/blog/2021/09/02/a-java-17-and-jakarta-ee-9-baseline-for-spring-framework-6
And given Spring is the king in the Java world, I think it should be acceptable to finally drop Java 8 in Play.
Actually you are the first one that is really against that change.

mkurz · 2022-09-30T14:47:51Z

Plus: You can still keep using Play 2.8.x, we will support it for a while (probably like 6-12 month when Play 2.9 is released. That should give people even more time to upgrade. Java 8 was released 8 years ago now, and probably it will be 9 when we stop support Java 8 in 2.8.x. Java 8 does not even has public updates anymore (do you pay for security fixes)?

cchantep · 2022-10-05T18:06:16Z

It's not always so easy. If we want to support newer Java versions, we probably just have to drop older ones.

We didn't have such issue previously.

For example have a look at playframework/play-doc#155: It is upgrading parboiled to support Java 17.

That's why I would prefer to break this dependency, or as it's only tooling run only doc job in such JVM.

Also on playframework/playframework#11078 just positive reactions.

That's not comparable.
Playframework is a framework, so already comes with more constraints and such update could not be such a big step there.
But in project rather using standalone lib such as anorm or play-json (or play-ws), it's also because more flexibility is required.

Also, we are "just" setting the baseline to Java 11 now. Spring 6 will be much more aggressive and will require Java 17: https://spring.io/blog/2021/09/02/a-java-17-and-jakarta-ee-9-baseline-for-spring-framework-6 And given Spring is the king in the Java world, I think it should be acceptable to finally drop Java 8 in Play. Actually you are the first one that is really against that change.

If the goal is to do another Spring, I'm sorry but then ...

ihostage · 2022-10-05T19:10:56Z

@cchantep Cédric, how do you propose to drop support Java 8 for Play (we already know that we can't don't do that, because we must support Java 17), but still support Java 8 for Anorm? 🤔
If you have a clear plan how to do this, please share it 🙏

cchantep · 2022-10-06T07:35:54Z

Either drop play-doc integration, or run it in a separate CI job.

gaeljw · 2023-04-26T19:43:17Z

Not sure what's the status about this but definitely agree that we should move on. Many major libraries and frameworks stopped supporting Java 8 (Mockito recently on top of my head). It's also our responsibility as maintainers to incentivize others to move on.

cchantep · 2023-04-27T11:53:12Z

It's also our responsibility as maintainers to incentivize others to move on.

No it's not.
Anorm is a standalone library. Not a framework.
It should be as less intrusive as it can, considering the cost.
And there the cost of maintaining compatibility considering the advantage is not in favor of dropping the support.

ihostage mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2022

Drop Java 8 playframework/play-meta#244

Open

30 tasks

mkurz force-pushed the dropJava8 branch from eac7854 to 6c16edc Compare September 29, 2022 15:05

cchantep requested changes Sep 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

mkurz marked this pull request as draft September 29, 2022 16:48

mkurz added 4 commits October 5, 2022 18:49

Drop Java 8

5de5197

CMS garbage collector was removed in Java 14

4da26b8

-release flag not availabe in Scala 2.11

5ec9415

Pull in new Guice version for Java 17 support

62884f6

mkurz force-pushed the dropJava8 branch from 8e2e498 to 62884f6 Compare October 5, 2022 16:51

ihostage mentioned this pull request Nov 9, 2023

Set Java version to publish explicitly #592

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Drop Java 8 #488

Drop Java 8 #488

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022

cchantep left a comment

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mkurz Sep 29, 2022

mkurz Sep 29, 2022

mkurz Sep 29, 2022

ihostage commented Sep 29, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022

mkurz Sep 29, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022

cchantep commented Sep 29, 2022

ihostage commented Sep 30, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 30, 2022

ihostage commented Sep 30, 2022

cchantep commented Sep 30, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 30, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 30, 2022 •

edited

Loading

cchantep commented Oct 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

ihostage commented Oct 5, 2022

cchantep commented Oct 6, 2022

gaeljw commented Apr 26, 2023

cchantep commented Apr 27, 2023

Drop Java 8 #488

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Drop Java 8 #488

Conversation

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022

cchantep left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022 • edited Loading

mkurz Sep 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mkurz Sep 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mkurz Sep 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ihostage commented Sep 29, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022

mkurz Sep 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022

cchantep commented Sep 29, 2022

ihostage commented Sep 30, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 30, 2022

ihostage commented Sep 30, 2022

cchantep commented Sep 30, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 30, 2022

mkurz commented Sep 30, 2022 • edited Loading

cchantep commented Oct 5, 2022 • edited Loading

ihostage commented Oct 5, 2022

cchantep commented Oct 6, 2022

gaeljw commented Apr 26, 2023

cchantep commented Apr 27, 2023

mkurz commented Sep 29, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mkurz commented Sep 30, 2022 •

edited

Loading

cchantep commented Oct 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading