Re: Re : Upgrade James to JDK17?

+1 for JDK 21.

I think the module enforcement may have quite an architectural impact 
though. Maybe we should have a separate James version 3.9 or even 4.0 
for a clean cut?

Cheers, Karsten

On 06.11.23 6:42 AM, Benoit TELLIER wrote:
> 
> +1 for JDK 21.
> 
> Thanks for the proposal.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Benoit TELLIER
> 
> General manager of Linagora VIETNAM.
> Product owner for Team-Mail product.
> Chairman of the Apache James project.
> 
> Mail: [email protected]
> Tel: (0033) 6 77 26 04 58 (WhatsApp, Signal)
> 
> 
> Le nov. 6, 2023 4:47 AM, de Rene Cordier Hello guys,
> 
> Well currently James is based on JDK 11. Should we think about upgrading
> to at least the next LTS, JDK 17? (or why even not the current LTS,
> which is the JDK 21?) I saw it being asked by a community member on a PR
> a while ago (Antoine Duprat) and in our company, we would be glad for
> such an upgrade as well.
> 
> Might need a bit of work but the project could definitely benefit from
> it: records (finish the long verbose POJOs), pattern matching, better GC
> handling, etc.
> 
> Would other people be interested about it too? Is it a problem for some
> others in the community?
> 
> Rene.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
>