Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum version for Groovy 6

I understand "minimum" to mean "will compile and run on this version or a
reasonable range of later versions but not earlier versions". The steps you
suggest seem just right to me.

Christopher Smith

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 08:57 Milles, Eric (TR Technology) via dev <
dev-GSC0n/0aZo1d/SJB6HiN2Ni2O/[email protected]> wrote:

> Does minimum [Java] version refer to the runtime the tools require or the
> JVM that we can target?  I think Java 17 is a sensible minimum for Groovy
> 6.  With Groovy 5 supporting Java 11 and Groovy 4 supporting Java 8.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Christopher Smith <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2025 7:29 AM
> *To:* dev-GSC0n/0aZo1d/SJB6HiN2Ni2O/[email protected] <dev-GSC0n/0aZo1d/SJB6HiN2Ni2O/[email protected]>
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum version for Groovy 6
>
> *External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments.
> I'm at a very small startup, and we still haven't migrated past Java 11,
> simply because there were some bugs in some libraries we used with 17, and
> we only have one and a half people working on the backend. We're planning
> to leapfrog to 25 when it's released, so we need *support* for
> compiling/running on 25, but 17 as a baseline makes it much more sense to
> me.
>
> One task I'd like to work on for Groovy 6 (hoped for 5 but just haven't
> had the bandwidth) is an update of the signatures for the GDK extension
> methods to support JDK functional interfaces in addition to, and perhaps
> eventually partly instead of, Closure. `with`, for example, has magical
> properties for a closure's delegate, so perhaps it always keeps that
> overload, but it's frustrating not being able to invoke it with a library
> Function without a bunch of extra overhead.
>
> Christopher Smith
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 07:07 Guillaume Laforge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I also like the idea of going with 17.
> Of course, we don't yet really know when Groovy will be released, but it
> sounds like a safe version to base it on, without cutting with users who
> may not have migrated beyond 17.
>
>
>
> *Guillaume Laforge*
> Apache Groovy committer
> Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cloud.google.com/__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIE_lSlpZg$>
>
>    - Blog: glaforge.dev
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://glaforge.dev/__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIEw3OGYxM$>
>    - X: @glaforge
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/glaforge__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIE0Ntj4XY$>
>    - Bluesky: @glaforge.dev
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bsky.app/profile/glaforge.dev__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIEInEQs_Y$>
>    - Mastodon: @[email protected]
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://*[email protected]/__;JQ!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIE2VqbkEg$>
>
>
> Le dim. 24 août 2025, 12:58, Andres Almiray <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> Sounds doable, considering that Maven 4 will also use Java 17.
>
> They have long discussed whether jumping to 21 should be the case as they
> want to support the last 2 LTS. With Java 25 coming closer (next month)
> there's a group pushing for jumping to 21.
> In our case I think staying with 17 is OK.
>
> Cheers,
> Andres
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Now that 5 is out, I created a GROOVY_5_0_X branch, and master has become
> Groovy 6.
>
> We should discuss a minimum JDK version we plan to support for Groovy 6.
>
> My current thinking is that since we are typically very conservative with
> the minimum version, we should bump to JDK17. I am hoping Groovy 6 will be
> delivered with a quicker window than Groovy 5, but there hasn't been any
> discussion about features as yet, so it's a little hard to predict. I think
> JDK17 gives us a nice increment where we can make numerous advances, and if
> the release is taking longer than we expected, we can always adjust our
> decision. But, I'm interested in what others think ...
>
>
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>