| Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Java 8 vs Java 11 Compatibility requirements |
Emily,
All of the Specifications in the Jakarta EE 9 Platform still have to be tested. The features that were dropped by Java 11 (jaxb, saaj, etc) will still need to demonstrate that their CIs can pass their respective TCKs. So, there would be no less testing from a Specification viewpoint.
Also, nothing is preventing implementations from testing and supporting Java 11. It should actually be encouraged. The two alternatives are just trying to differentiate between which one we should lead with. Which Java SE runtime should be required, and which one should be optional for Jakarta EE 9.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From: Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/08/2020 05:00
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Java 8 vs Java 11 Compatibility requirements
Sent by: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I think alternative 1 is better as Jakarta EE9 is certified with the new Java 11 and paves a good foundation for future development. This can test the features dropped off by Java 11 are indeed provided by Jakarta EE9. Besides, the runtimes can certify against Java 8 for their customers at their own pace.
I have some concern with alternative 2: how can we ensure all of the features dropped off by Java 11 were added back to Jakarta EE9 without testing them thoroughly? Besides, it still stays on an old version of Java while the Java community is trying to move forward to Java 11, 14, etc.
Emily
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 10:30 PM Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
This topic has come up on our TCK mailing list (https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-tck-dev/msg00785.html). The basic issue is that we *may* have a mismatch on our stated Java support statements and what can or will be delivered. I'd first like to explain the problem, and then suggest a couple of alternatives, and then ask for feedback. We need to make a decision by the end of this week (July 10). I'm moving this discussion to the Platform and Spec Project Leads mailing lists to get a wider audience.
The Jakarta EE 9 Release Plan (https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jakartaee-platform/jakartaee9/JakartaEE9ReleasePlan) states this:
Java SE Version
For inclusion in Jakarta EE 9, specification’s APIs MUST be compiled at the Java SE 8 source level. However, compatible implementations of the Jakarta EE 9 Web Profile and Full Profile MUST certify compatibility on Java SE 11. Compatible Implementations MAY additionally certify and support Java SE 8.
Due to this "dual" compatibility requirement, the TCK is being built at the Java SE 8 byte code level.
Due to the stated MUST requirement of certifying on Java SE 11, Glassfish was going to move to being built at the Java SE 11 byte code level.
But, if we continue down that Java 11 only path for Glassfish, then we would not have an environment where we could prove compatibility with the Java SE 8 runtime. And, that would prevent us from successfully delivering Jakarta EE 9 since we need to demonstrate both the Required and Optional aspects of the Platform. (This is assuming that MUST==Required and MAY==Optional.)
We have been discussing a couple of alternatives.... Both of which would require an update to the Release Plan. We're looking for feedback to help figure out which approach provides the least impact and best experience for our customers.
Alternative 1:
TCK and Glassfish would be built at the Java SE 8 byte code level. The runtime for the execution of the TCK would be Java SE 11. We would requireJava 11 for certifying compatibility for Jakarta EE 9. We would notrequire compatibility testing with the Java SE 8 runtime. We would still have TCK Jenkins jobs running with Java SE 8 so that progress could be monitored, but proving that certification works with Java SE 8 would not be a requirement for releasing Jakarta EE 9.
(To be totally open, this was the alternative that I presented to the Steering Committee today. I was looking for a means of delivering Jakarta EE 9 without compromising the Jakarta EE 9 release plan too much. Basically, looking to soften the Optional requirement of the Java SE 8 runtime. During the course of the discussion, we came up with Alternative 2...)
Alternative 2:
TCK and Glassfish would still be built at the Java SE 8 byte code level. But, we would flip the release plan requirements... The runtime for the execution of the TCK would be Java SE 8. We would requireJava 8 for certifying compatibility for Jakarta EE 9. We would notrequirecompatibility testing with the Java SE 11 runtime. We would still have TCK Jenkins jobs running with Java SE 11 so that progress could be monitored, but proving that certification works with Java SE 11 would not be a requirement for releasing Jakarta EE 9.
(Background... Everything we released for Milestone 1 was with Java SE 8. We're already well on our way with the TCK effort. Moving Glassfish to Java SE 11 could disrupt our progress. Granted, we can hope for the best, but chances are moving to Java 11 will set us back a bit. And, since Java SE 8's Extended EOS date continues to move out (it's actually further out than Java SE 11), then maybe it makes more sense to stick with the proven environment.)
Note:
The subset of Java SE features that were dropped by Java 11 will still be provided via Jakarta EE 9. So, nothing else changes from a Release Plan content viewpoint. We're just looking for ways to mitigate some of the risks associated with certifying Glassfish with both Java SE 8 and Java SE 11.
Feedback welcome! Thanks!
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
--
Thanks
Emily
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev