Hi, I am a bit new to Tamaya, so apologies if this has already been discussed. It is clear that the codebase targets Java 8. It is also entirely _usable_ on newer (jdk9 & jdk10) platforms. However, it is not currently possible to build Tamaya on jdk9 or jdk10. My first question is: should it be possible to build Tamaya on the latest JDK?
In fact, the only impediment to building on jdk9 is the karaf-maven-plugin. In particular, some Java EE libraries are no longer on the classpath by default: javax.xml.bind and javax.activation. With jdk10, these libraries will no longer be included in the Java SE at all. Adding those dependencies directly to the plugin configuration or upgrading to the latest (milestone) Karaf release makes it possible to build on jdk9. Building on jdk10 has the additional problem of the javadoc plugin not being able to parse the JVM version string with commons-lang 3.5 release. Forcing the use of commons-lang 3.7 for the plugin solves that. Is this something you all would like to support? I can provide a pull request for that. The other, related, issue has to do with the Java 9 module system (JSR-376). Even while targeting JDK 1.8 for the Tamaya codebase, there is a fairly simple thing that can be done to make the Tamaya codebase easier to use with the Java 9 module system. Basically, it involves adding a "Automatic-Module-Name: <module-name>" entry in the MANIFEST.MF file. Practically, this means adjusting the various bnd.bnd files in the codebase. For instance, the tamaya-core JAR would likely have a module name of: org.apache.tamaya.core (typically, this would align with the existing OSGi Export-Package). The tamaya-api JAR currently exports two packages (o.a.t and o.a.t.spi), so perhaps the module name would simply be org.apache.tamaya? I suspect that the various extensions would make use of the current OSGi export naming convention for this, as with tamaya-core. If this is something you'd like to have for the 0.4 release, I can also supply a pull request for that. Also, I am happy to open JIRA issues for either or both of these items, though I wasn't sure if you'd like to discuss either of these first. Thanks, Aaron Coburn
