Thank you for summing up the arguments so far. My vote still is -1 as still I do not see the *actual* risk; IMHO the problem does not exists *in reality at time of release*,
so we can stick to 21, hence give people inspiration to step on to 21 and not just to 17.
-Markus
Von: Jim Krueger [mailto:jckofbyron@xxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Dezember 2023 19:13
An: Jakarta Rest project developer discussions
Cc: James Perkins; Markus Karg
Betreff: Re: [rest-dev] Drop Minimum Java Requirement to Java 17
I’ve been ill for the last few days so I’m a bit late here. After digesting this discussion and reviewing the time and circumstances surrounding the change to Java 21 under
https://github.com/jakartaee/rest/pull/1168 I’ve
reached the following conclusions (at least for myself). Please correct me if I’ve missed something.
1. The change to require Java 21 under PR 1168 was made, at least in part, due to a perceived requirement from the Jakarta EE Platform 11 (see the first sentence in
https://github.com/jakartaee/rest/issues/1167).
This has since be clarified by the platform to state that individual APIs can use lower levels if JDK 21 is not strictly needed in the API. So there technically is nothing preventing Jakarta Rest from lowering the requirement to Java 17, understanding
that the TCK must still be compiled and run in Java 21.
2. There is no concrete need for Jakarta Rest-4.0 to require Java 21. No current or proposed API changes that would require it. If this changes then obviously the requirement will need to change as well.
3. There is no concrete need for moving back to Java 17 outside of concerns raised about adoption assuming that the minimum version were to remain at Java 21.
4. Since Java 21 is still the required version for the TCK, support is implied regardless of the required version Rest-4.0 chooses.
Therefore, it appears to me that there is no real benefit to raising the minimum version to 21 at this time and there is at least the potential for the disadvantage of preventing adoption. While I cannot state a specific case where Java version has been a
deterrent, I have personally experienced multiple customer scenarios where upgrades that were suggested without concrete benefits provided were soundly rejected.
So my vote on this matter is:
no need to be sorry. In fact I did not understand your comments as being rude. I personally (as a non-native speaker) have problems to express me clearly. Sorry if it
was unclear what the difference between my personal opinion and the legal settings of the EF are.
Von: James
Perkins [mailto:jperkins@xxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023 19:45
An: Markus Karg
Cc: Jakarta Rest project developer discussions; Rob McDougall
Betreff: Re: [rest-dev] Drop Minimum Java Requirement to Java 17
Thank you for the clarification Markus. I do understand what you mean now. My apologies if my response came across rude as I did not mean it that way, but reading it back I can see how it came across that way. My sincere apologies.
I do not want to get misunderstood: I am just a user myself, even a volunteer in this project (nobody pays me for working on JAX-RS), and certainly I personally solely
do consider usefulness for the enduser. But that was not the question asked, and Spring is not an end user, but a company making money with JAX-RS and other technoligies.
This project itself, officially, as set up legally by the EF, is solely controlled and bound to vendors' decisions; users (unless they are committers like me) simply do
not have any powers.
It is not that I like that situation, but it is simply the truth.
Von: James
Perkins [mailto:jperkins@xxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023 18:55
An: Jakarta Rest project developer discussions
Cc: Rob McDougall; Markus Karg
Betreff: Re: [rest-dev] Drop Minimum Java Requirement to Java 17
I want to say I do not agree with this at all. Any contribution I have made or will continue to make will be with the end user in mind. A users opinion matters greatly to me personally. That is who I'm developing for as I actually want them to use what I'm
developing.
Posting an opinion IS a form of contribution, and everybody is welcome to post here, but we do not actively ask anybody to join this mailing list.
The specification is actually not developed for users, but is a wrapper around existing products (due to the "code first" attitude of the EF).
So we are doing this spec for vendors, not for users, indeed.
Von: Rob
McDougall [mailto:rob.mcdougall@xxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023 17:33
An: Markus Karg; 'Jakarta Rest project developer discussions'
Betreff: RE: [rest-dev] Drop Minimum Java Requirement to Java 17
-
Once Spring is willing to contribute to Jakarta REST they are welcome to share their opinion in this discussion forum. Until today we did not receive any contribution from Spring.
So only contributors get a say, not users? I think you’re forgetting who you’re developing the spec for… 😊
Rob McDougall | Senior Technical Architect | 4Point |
+1.613.907.6415 | www.4Point.com
Receive our news and announcements before anyone else - follow us on:
Upcoming out of office dates:
Public Holidays: Dec 25th – Jan 1st
Vacation: Dec 18 th-Dec 20th
Once Spring is willing to contribute to Jakarta REST they are welcome to share their opinion in this discussion forum. Until today we did not receive any contribution from Spring.
Von: rest-dev
[mailto:rest-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Rob
McDougall via rest-dev
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023 16:05
An: Jakarta Rest project developer discussions
Cc: Rob McDougall
Betreff: Re: [rest-dev] Drop Minimum Java Requirement to Java 17
Has anyone discussed this with the maintainers of spring-boot-jersey-starter?
Spring has committed to supporting Java 17 throughout the Spring Boot 3.x lifecycle. This may be an impediment for them to adopt Jakarta REST 4.0 or they may be able to work around it. They may allow you to bring in 4.0 if you’re using
Java 21 or they may stick with 3.1.
Personally, I use that for many projects. I would be disappointed if I was stuck on 3.1 even if I was using Java 21 (due to lack of support for Java 17).
Rob McDougall | Senior Technical Architect | 4Point |
+1.613.907.6415 | www.4Point.com
Receive our news and announcements before anyone else - follow us on:
Upcoming out of office dates:
Public Holidays: Dec 25th – Jan 1st
Vacation: Dec 18 th-Dec 20th
To me it comes down to the question of adoption. Do we want people to adopt the new Jakarta REST 4.0 specification? If yes, running on Java SE 17 seems like we would get the most adoption.
It's similar to discussions that we had since about Java 1.2 really. Back then it was staying on Java 1.0 vs adopting Java 1.2, and not even that long ago in Java EE 8 staying on Java 6 vs Java 8.
Eventually, was it ever an issue?
For some customers, it definitely was.
I mean, JDK 21 was released, instead of putting more time into JDK 17. Why did the Java SE team even release 21, if putting more time and energy into Java 17 updates would mean larger adoption of Java?
Or would pushing the ecosystem forward eventually mean more adoption?
That's impossible to say. Looking in the past though, corporations and government agencies are slow to adopt new things. Does that mean they may be slow to adopt Jakarta REST 4.0? Probably, but the least barrier of entry the better. Again,
only Jakarta REST and Jakarta Concurrency are the only two individual specs moving beyond Java SE 17.
