This approach makes sense to me. But to my original question, is now a good time to start thinking about straight Java EE 7 support and cutting over to a 2.x mainline?
John On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:25 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree, we don't gain much with moving to Java7. > > Thus I'd say that we keep Java6/CDI-1.0 and have the next major version > bump (aka DeltaSpike-2.x) targeting Java8 and CDI-2.0. But of course keep a > ds-1.x maintenance branch even after that for a while. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > > On Thursday, 7 April 2016, 14:42, Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > as mentioned in the initial discussion i also don't see a real benefit > for > > us as a community (to drop the java 6 support at this point). > > in the end ds targets ee6 + supports ee7 servers (including optional > > features). > > ee6 isn't bound to java 6 technically, however, e.g. some vendors require > > it... > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > 2016-04-07 13:18 GMT+02:00 Rooda, William (John.) <[email protected]>: > > > >> Ford has an internal “shared farm” of servers that our applications can > >> use. The shared farm is Websphere Application Server 8.0.0.x. This > only > >> has Java6 available. While some teams go out and spend the money to > >> procure their own servers outside of the shared farm, this is > prohibitively > >> expensive without a powerful use case. > >> > >> > >> > >> Our Java applications won't have a server offering in our internal > > shared > >> farm for Java 7 until 4Q2016 or 1Q2017 at the earliest. We plan on > >> developing almost all applications against Java6 until that time, and > >> unfortunately we have to re-evaluate continuing to use at an enterprise > >> level any open source software that no longer patches and supports > Java6 > >> due to the risk it introduces to our applications. We understand that > this > >> makes us an outlier in the community of DeltaSpike users. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > >> > >> ~john > >> > >> > >> From: John D. Ament [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:13 AM > >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] > >> Cc: Rooda, William (John.); Shvartsman, Oleg (O.I.); Hall, Todd (T.B.) > >> Subject: Re: Cutting over to Java 7 > >> > >> Hi Marvin, > >> > >> Thanks for the input. You can find our discussion/vote thread from > last > >> month here: > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/deltaspike-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAOqetn_vo69sx-yQjLt%3DQpfdRXgXVqu7NiobanLgXKOOr6Co0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >> > >> The curious thing about your note - the WebSphere version I've seen the > >> Ford team mention a few times requires Java 7. In general, EE 7 > systems > >> were built for Java 7 support (JMS made use of autocloseable is one I > can > >> think of off the top of my head). > >> > >> As mentioned, there's still a plan to support the 1.6.x line. If you > > guys > >> find any issues that you need to stay on 1.6.x, please feel free to > raise > >> them and we can address as additional 1.6.x patches. > >> > >> John > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:42 AM Marvin Toll <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> A data point: Ford Motor Company is on Java 6. Given our portfolio of > >> 4,000 applications (a subset of which are Java) - it is difficult to > know > >> how long a migration to Java 7 will take. It was scheduled to begin in > >> calendar year 2016 - the current "begin" target is 2017. > >> > >> _Marvin > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John D. Ament [mailto:[email protected]<mailto: > >> [email protected]>] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:14 PM > >> To: deltaspike > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > >> >> > >> Subject: Cutting over to Java 7 > >> > >> All, > >> > >> I wanted to get opinions for how to cut over to Java 7. > >> > >> There's two ways I've done similar cut overs in the past, wanted to > > share > >> them and build out some ideas. > >> > >> 1. Continue maintenance on 1.6 for x months. When we decide that we're > >> going to cut a 1.7 we do the switch then. > >> > >> 2. Decide now that the next release is going to be planned as 1.7. If > we > >> need to do maintenance on 1.6 we branch from the tag and merge back in > when > >> done. > >> > >> The former is safer, but will take longer. The last minor release had > the > >> most patch releases on it, 4. The latter is more practical and shows > >> implementation much quicker. It creates a bit more overhead as we'd > > need > >> to merge branches. In the 4.5 years of deltaspike, we haven't had to > > do it > >> thus yet. I suspect that given our user base, #2 would be acceptable > since > >> most everyone's using Java 7+, so it seems a small chance that we'd > > run > >> into a JVM difference. I'm not sure if others have different ideas to > >> throw out. > >> > >> John > >> > > >
