Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] TM4E planning to start using JavaSE-17 as

[Torbjorn SVENSSON <torbjorn.svensson@xxxxxx>]

Hello,

Is it only me that sees problems for downstream consumers of the SimRel? I mean, what happens if you use the SimRel as a way to define a stable target platform for your product?
As long as the BREE of the plugins is not newer than version X will allow the product to run with JRE of that version "X".
What you are talking about here is more or less requiring anyone using SimRel to also move to a JRE 17. I think that's okay to do, but there should be some heads up for this type of change as it can cause major problem for our downstream consumers.

My 2 cents is that the newest BREE allowed in SimRel should be the same version that is said to be the required JRE version to run the Eclipse IDE (AFAIK, that's JRE 11 ATM).

Kind regards,
Torbjörn


ST Restricted

-----Original Message-----
From: cross-project-issues-dev <cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Christoph Läubrich
Sent: den 19 april 2022 19:16
To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] TM4E planning to start using JavaSE-17 as BREE soon

 > I would be very keen to allow Java 17 as BREE in SimRel by a project
 > that wants it.
 > PS Where is "SimRel targets Java 11" defined? Is it just implicit
 > at the moment (because Eclipse Platform is Java 11),

I think there is at least no *technical* reason of this, as far as I 
know there are still bundles targeting Java 8 (or even 6), one should 
only keep in mind that if Eclipse is run with JDK11 then it would 
require users to install never version if they want install such Java 17 
stuff (probably that will be automated with the JustJ updatesite 
included), so maybe there is nothing special to consider?



Am 19.04.22 um 16:37 schrieb Jonah Graham:
> Thank you Mickael for starting this discussion.
> 
> I would be very keen to allow Java 17 as BREE in SimRel by a project 
> that wants it. I will endeavour to get the Planning Council to come to 
> an agreement on this as I think that is the group in charge of such 
> requirements.
> 
> PS Where is "SimRel targets Java 11" defined? Is it just implicit at the 
> moment (because Eclipse Platform is Java 11), or is it explicit 
> somewhere? The only requirement on this topic in the SimRel Release 
> Requirements is that bundles have a BREE[1]
> 
> [1] 
> https://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#Execution_Environment_.28tested.29 
> <https://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#Execution_Environment_.28tested.29>
> 
> Jonah
> 
> 
> ~~~
> Jonah Graham
> Kichwa Coders
> www.kichwacoders.com <http://www.kichwacoders.com>
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 10:25, Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     In https://github.com/eclipse/tm4e/issues/339
>     <https://github.com/eclipse/tm4e/issues/339> , active TM4E
>     contributors have agreed to consider the move the JavaSE-17 as
>     minimal Java version soon. The rationale is that some benefits of
>     recent version of Java languages (sealed Types, switch
>     expressions....) are likely to really facilitate further maintenance
>     and development of the parsers included in TM4E, and also to
>     increase quality (new constructs leave less space for bugs, and
>     often perform better). So we can expect a substantial gain for TM4E
>     future in adopting Java 17 soon.
> 
>     I'm sharing this with Simultaneous Release channel as TM4E is part
>     of SimRel. At the moment, SimRel targets Java 11. So when TM4E is
>     released with Java 17 requirement, either SimRel allows that and the
>     new release gets in; or SimRel keeps Java 11 requirement and will
>     use an older version of TM4E (for which there would probably have no
>     support given currently active contributors are happy moving to Java
>     17).
>     TM4E is used by Wild Web Developer for instance; but Wild Web
>     Developer doesn't mandate 1 specific version of TM4E and we plan to
>     keep TM4E backward compatible in term of behavior and API; so those
>     downstream consumers should be able to work with former (Java
>     11-able) release as well as newer (Java 17-able) release. So I don't
>     think that downstream consumption should be a main concern.
> 
>     I would invite SimRel stakeholders to consider is whether/when to
>     allow Java 17-based code in SimRel.
>     Of course, I would advocate for "Do it right now" especially since
>     JustJ and thus SimRel and EPP packages ships a recent Java; but
>     acknowledge that this may require more discussion, hence why I'm
>     sharing this plan for TM4E early.
> 
>     Cheers,
> 
>     -- 
>     Mickael Istria
>     Eclipse IDE <https://www.eclipse.org/eclipseide> developer, for Red
>     Hat Developers <https://developers.redhat.com/>
>     _______________________________________________
>     cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>     cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>     To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>     https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev