I'm OK with our tooling requiring whatever makes our lives simplest as long we
can guarantee that the target byte codes and *API calls* will work on Java 8
for 2.x.
Gary
On 2023/03/08 19:29:29 Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> I completely support both initiatives:
>
> 1. Moving the JDK to 17 (why stay
I completely support both initiatives:
1. Moving the JDK to 17 (why stay at 11?)
2. Moving `log4j-jmx-gui` to a separate repository
We have pulled a similar stunt in `log4j-tools`: it uses JDK 11, though
targets 8. We can easily move `log4j-jmx-gui` to a separate repository by
copying the project
Hi,
Compiling 2.x using JDK 8 requires a lot of tricks:
* Surefire scans classes using the main Maven JDK, so we must be sure
`module-info.class` and other Java 9+ classes are not on the test
classpath. This basically means we need to delete them before testing
and creating them afterwards.
* We
