Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

2023-06-09 Thread Christoph Läubrich
> I'd really like to >* use JEP 442 to get rid of the JNI and native libs in jline, jansi and > mvnd (but that's for JDK 21) Just in case you can use this from Java 17 on but would need a Multi-Release-Jar due to the API changes between Java 19 / 21, I'm using this already in one of my pr

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

2023-06-09 Thread Olivier Lamy
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 at 06:20, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > I'd really like to > * use JEP 442 to get rid of the JNI and native libs in jline, jansi and > mvnd (but that's for JDK 21) I understand your pain here. Temporary we are using that for Jetty. Even if a package such jdk.incubator.foreign i

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

2023-06-09 Thread Guillaume Nodet
I'd really like to * use JEP 442 to get rid of the JNI and native libs in jline, jansi and mvnd (but that's for JDK 21) * use JEP 380 (unix domain sockets) to be able to cleanly implement https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/269 * use some helper methods that have been added: List.of

Re: Maven 3.9.x plugins verifications

2023-06-09 Thread Slawomir Jaranowski
Hi, I think that introducing property is better than changing logging levels. Everything is reported by one class so we don't have the possibility of what information and how it should be reported. So I would like to think again what options we have and what for? In current 3.9.x we have: - N

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

2023-06-09 Thread Delany
Not to obstruct your train of thought, but I want to add that the pragmatic imperative is a double-edged sword. Ruling out the possibility of side effects also rules out any unexpected benefits. So often I've found doors were opened because I expanded my vision and did things that weren't required.

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

2023-06-09 Thread Guillaume Nodet
Le ven. 9 juin 2023 à 08:59, Hervé Boutemy a écrit : > adding a new POM element in build POM was supposed to be something for > Maven 5 > and to trigger a POM 5 version, to make clear that we are leaving the > Maven 3 > space (that uses POM version 4, hence the need for version clarification > be

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

2023-06-09 Thread Olivier Lamy
this jdk discussion could be ended if someone could say we need jdk17 as a minimum because we really need this jdk feature. Frankly, I don’t care about being jdk17 minimum and I'm fine with that but what sort of feature do we really need? nobody prevents users from using 17 or 21 but on the other s

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

2023-06-09 Thread Olivier Lamy
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 16:23, Heiko Studt wrote: > > Hallo, > > Quote: > > the pom with a hardcoded version of the schema. > > But frankly let's consider this as a bug in the tool/ide doing so. > > Sorry to disagree: from a security standpoint, XSD is sufficient complex > enough that I do not wan

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

2023-06-09 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
+1 to keep 3.x as this +1 to do not backward incompatible changes in v4 if possible (we regularly have the need and workaround it) Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github