Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse-pmc] Java 11 runtime support in ecj in 4.28
  • From: Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 21:06:39 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=yoJFiDNw6968QAfkZ05YQOD7tFnyV093Zd8EmYsja2Q=; b=b6jeoE25Jd6u9AQApCOQbhBwCD3CGhucEDWWYgv7UM9ExCTZwhDP0kbkoNrLD1vdDJGfLUEysaZt2gzsFBP7ldwK7EmLEbxQa1fxBEuYvsFMhFS48c76SMUBCkkEx4QnCphj8ehDtistDtv2kBBma1ZlI1K8ZHIO7FZCVMH1YlQ9PHxWw9EBepZlrMZ0Eo8iWZwHfN46HJcU/2vZBuVvXyyvQZ9QXJjFysBvjBQ9racLZ5xbslxWVMegSEjQ1nnglzT1lWF5NIHk0U+qbofDz7qHXPaSlQTLGZT8HBu8otrq7DkrkBMU9r+Al5D4EwEVd6Bgf2UkyKFHEbmFhBPHSQ==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=RwJe5361RUvb4sJD52G9WJEC+5XRWAlJMosSbmbSeRgdl44GmjNG/gUvZhLcRoC5swnGiTLzowUxZRi/Ts5hWNJ23Xw8yh3KcPGh9AKr5W8VdVgla2q3nOO3By5BFX4JknOWxXPhWk0dTagFkMD36rXoCVXa1RAmnFJ5ovixiuymL52X5KMBrrgkpRthV8PumEto0xdPABrJo9ExHUNS0JCzILer/1BTyv8ouqeHNOKG6SUv0zUerbBxh1E66GaiUE50/PTek3HGPhIcRO7u8m2TJADCj1G+vLxXgydJuAg/WFauG3HsKTgTwnZe2VlXUSCPV56P8Esa1hf2gUYq0Q==
  • Delivered-to: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • Msip_labels:
  • Thread-index: AQHZXcX8sCrDK+05R0SNOcPS0CXnH68I2c5f
  • Thread-topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Java 11 runtime support in ecj in 4.28

I think some discussion is needed here.  I see Jay has lots of concerns about moving to Java 17 for ECJ and Jay is on the PMC.  Will his vote count to help resolve this conflict between project leads?

Overall, I am curious on the bundles that moved to Java 17 already.  What new features of Java 17 did they start using?  I'm not in favor of moving up Java versions for a component without actual code changes in the component that start using new features out of the new Java version.  I simply don't see the point in doing that exercise unless new Java features are actually going to be used by the component.


From: eclipse-pmc <eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 3:27 PM
To: pmc <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eclipse JDT general developers list. <jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Java 11 runtime support in ecj in 4.28
+1 for moving to Java 17 Andrey Loskutov <loskutov@ gmx. de> schrieb am Do. , 23. März 2023, 19: 53: Hi PMC, we have a lovely discussion on https: //github. com/eclipse-jdt/eclipse. jdt. core/issues/886 regarding ecj starting to require Java
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
+1 for moving to Java 17

Andrey Loskutov <loskutov@xxxxxx> schrieb am Do., 23. März 2023, 19:53:
Hi PMC, 

we have a lovely discussion on regarding ecj starting to require Java 17 runtime and dropping Java 11 runtime support in 4.28.

Would be nice if we could have PMC resolution/decision on this question soon.

Short summary of the problem:

Eclipse 4.28 is going to support Java 17 runtime only (see

ECJ, as standalone compiler library, could in theory still stay and support execution on Java 11.

The controversial proposal that requires resolution is: ECJ released with 4.28 would also require at least Java 17 for execution.

Note: Compilation *targets* are not affected by that, ecj will still support compilation down to Java 8 JLS.

Kind regards,
Andrey Loskutov

Спасение утопающих - дело рук самих утопающих
eclipse-pmc mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top