Re: [External Sender] Re: [Jython-dev] Java 7 or 8?

--===============3345942258246225992==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011e0ca058eae2735"

--00000000000011e0ca058eae2735
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Are we talking weeks or or over a year away from a release?
On Jython-dev mailing list, Jeff recently started a thread about Jython
2.7.2 beta phase details.
So I assumed in my vote that the release is reasonably close. I agree that
supporting Java 7 does not
make sense if that's not the case.
I also assumed that Jython 2.7.2 would be forward compatible as work went
into supporting Java 9+.
It runs well also on Java 8 right now. And if not in some aspects, I doubt
that it would do much good
just to say "J7 is not supported any more" without doing actual changes
beyond stopping building and
testing on J7. Actually and significantly leveraging Java 8 advantages
requires additional work and
wouldn't be feasible for a soonish release. Better cut here (like it was
the plan) and do a proper Java 8(+?)
integration for 2.7.3 and/or 3.

> ...seems more important that trying to support people who decided not to
upgrade 3-4 years ago from J7.
I also agree here. My point was not to support them; just not to
"intentionally" hurt them without compelling reason.

Regarding the elephant - I'll postpone that topic for now.

Am Sa., 27. Juli 2019 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb James Klo <[email protected]>:

> This seems to be the most credible argument for not changing to J8 for
> 2.7.2.
>
> However lets unpack that a bit.
>
> Dropping Java 7 support just "one second" before 2.7.2 release looks
> rushed to me.
>
>
> While I agree in theory - =E2=80=9Cone second=E2=80=9D in Jython time app=
ears to be in the
> year range given the amount of resources that I have observed to supporti=
ng
> advancement of the project. Are we talking weeks or or over a year away
> from a release? If latter I think in the best interests of both the curre=
nt
> and future community that would like to utilize 2.7.2 - J8 is a better
> choice. That opens the door wider community wanting to incorporate. For u=
s,
> we=E2=80=99ve had to stifle development on a custom lexer library that we=
 access
> via pygments in order to retain Jython support. If we=E2=80=99re saying a=
 release
> is eminent within a few weeks to a month I say just wrap up with J7, and
> the next version makes J8 the minimum. But Jython is quickly advancing in=
to
> irrelevance as fewer and fewer projects are left that will work with J7.
> Modern projects won=E2=80=99t want to refactor libraries backwards just t=
o gain
> Jython support - they=E2=80=99ll start looking for alternatives that are =
more
> modern.
>
> I personally know a company where still Java 6 is floating around and I
> suspect there are plenty. So the EOL argument
> is more a virtual one.
>
>
> OpenJDK is where the world is at in the post-apocalyptic world known as
> Oracle Java. Those companies that have chosen to stick with 6 (and even 7
> at this point) have concluded that they have the resources to support the=
ir
> back porting modern frameworks to fit their circumstances. I hate soundin=
g
> like a dick, but given the number of developer resources available to
> support the Jython project - that already moves at a snails pace - growin=
g
> adoption and the developer community around a solution that a wider
> audience can use seems more important that trying to support people who
> decided not to upgrade 3-4 years ago from J7.
>
> Jeff mentions:
>
> We currently build and test
>>> on Java 7 but some things would resolve themselves if we could move on.
>>
>>
> Could there be some elaboration here? What issues on the 2.7.2 milestone
> would be solved by moving to J8? Pluses and minuses here would be helpful=
.
>
> The other elephant in the room is certainly around Python 3. The looming
> end of life for Python 2 is fast approaching. While I concede this isn=E2=
=80=99t
> necessarily a problem for Jython but it does define what a final 2.7.x
> features would need to be supported. How long does this project intend to
> support the Python 2.7 language spec? When do we support Python 3? I=E2=
=80=99m
> already seeing a fair number of modules not being supported for Python 2.
> The last time I had to build our runtime environment I had to go and pull
> package dependencies from sources as I could no longer download compatibl=
e
> versions for Jython. With the vast majority of new Python scripting
> happening around Python 3 - this is only going to get worse   Furthering =
J7
> much longer furthers an ecosystem of frameworks that is all but obsolete
> and difficult to incorporate into modern projects.
>
> My vote. If 2.7.2 is close to release (meaning days to weeks) stick to J7
> for the sake of getting it done. If we=E2=80=99re talking more than a mon=
th or more
> - I vote J8 as IMO throws out a lifeline for the Jython project as a whol=
e.
>
> - jk
>
>

--00000000000011e0ca058eae2735
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>&gt; Are we talking weeks or or over a year away from=
 a release?</div><div>On Jython-dev mailing list, Jeff recently started a t=
hread about Jython 2.7.2 beta phase details.</div><div>So I assumed in my v=
ote that the release is reasonably close. I agree that supporting Java 7 do=
es not</div><div>make sense if that&#39;s not the case.</div><div>I also as=
sumed that Jython 2.7.2 would be forward compatible as work went into suppo=
rting Java 9+.</div><div>It runs well also on Java 8 right now. And if not =
in some aspects, I doubt that it would do much good</div><div>just to say &=
quot;J7 is not supported any more&quot; without doing actual changes beyond=
 stopping building and</div><div>testing on J7. Actually and significantly =
leveraging Java 8 advantages requires additional work and</div><div>wouldn&=
#39;t be feasible for a soonish release. Better cut here (like it was the p=
lan) and do a proper Java 8(+?)</div><div>integration for 2.7.3 and/or 3.</=
div><div><br></div><div>&gt; ...seems more important that trying to support=
 people who decided not to upgrade 3-4 years ago from J7.</div><div>I also =
agree here. My point was not to support them; just not to &quot;intentional=
ly&quot; hurt them without compelling reason.</div><div><br></div><div>Rega=
rding the elephant - I&#39;ll postpone that topic for now.<br></div></div><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Am Sa.,=
 27. Juli 2019 um 18:32=C2=A0Uhr schrieb James Klo &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ji=
[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt;:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex">



<div dir=3D"auto">
This seems to be the most credible argument for not changing to J8 for 2.7.=
2.=C2=A0
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However lets unpack that a bit.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><font color=3D"#000000"><span style=3D"background-color:rg=
ba(255,255,255,0)">Dropping Java 7 support just &quot;one second&quot; befo=
re 2.7.2 release looks rushed to me.=C2=A0</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>While I agree in theory - =E2=80=9Cone second=E2=80=9D in Jython time =
appears to be in the year range given the amount of resources that I have o=
bserved to supporting advancement of the project. Are we talking weeks or o=
r over a year away from a release? If latter I think
 in the best interests of both the current and future community that would =
like to utilize 2.7.2 - J8 is a better choice. That opens the door wider co=
mmunity wanting to incorporate. For us, we=E2=80=99ve had to stifle develop=
ment on a custom lexer library that we access
 via pygments in order to retain Jython support. If we=E2=80=99re saying a =
release is eminent within a few weeks to a month I say just wrap up with J7=
, and the next version makes J8 the minimum. But Jython is quickly advancin=
g into irrelevance as fewer and fewer projects
 are left that will work with J7. Modern projects won=E2=80=99t want to ref=
actor libraries backwards just to gain Jython support - they=E2=80=99ll sta=
rt looking for alternatives that are more modern.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div><font color=3D"#000000"><span style=3D"background-color:rgba(255,255,2=
55,0)">I personally know a company where still Java 6 is floating around an=
d I suspect there are plenty. So the EOL argument</span></font></div>
<div><font color=3D"#000000"><span style=3D"background-color:rgba(255,255,2=
55,0)">is more a virtual one.=C2=A0</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>OpenJDK is where the world is at in the post-apocalyptic world known a=
s Oracle Java. Those companies that have chosen to stick with 6 (and even 7=
 at this point) have concluded that they have the resources to support thei=
r back porting modern frameworks
 to fit their circumstances. I hate sounding like a dick, but given the num=
ber of developer resources available to support the Jython project - that a=
lready moves at a snails pace - growing adoption and the developer communit=
y around a solution that a wider
 audience can use seems more important that trying to support people who de=
cided not to upgrade 3-4 years ago from J7.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jeff mentions:</div>
<div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<font color=3D"#000000"><span style=3D"background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)=
">We currently build and test=C2=A0<br>
on Java 7 but some things would resolve themselves if we could move on.=C2=
=A0</span></font></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Could there be some elaboration here? What issues on the 2.7.2 milesto=
ne would be solved by moving to J8? Pluses and minuses here would be helpfu=
l.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The other elephant in the room is certainly around Python 3. The loomi=
ng end of life for Python 2 is fast approaching. While I concede this isn=
=E2=80=99t necessarily a problem for Jython but it does define what a final=
 2.7.x features would need to be supported.
 How long does this project intend to support the Python 2.7 language spec?=
 When do we support Python 3? I=E2=80=99m already seeing a fair number of m=
odules not being supported for Python 2. The last time I had to build our r=
untime environment I had to go and pull
 package dependencies from sources as I could no longer download compatible=
 versions for Jython. With the vast majority of new Python scripting happen=
ing around Python 3 - this is only going to get worse =C2=A0 Furthering J7 =
much longer furthers an ecosystem of
 frameworks that is all but obsolete and difficult to incorporate into mode=
rn projects.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My vote. If 2.7.2 is close to release (meaning days to weeks) stick to=
 J7 for the sake of getting it done. If we=E2=80=99re talking more than a m=
onth or more - I vote J8 as IMO throws out a lifeline for the Jython projec=
t as a whole.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- jk<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>

</blockquote></div>

--00000000000011e0ca058eae2735--


--===============3345942258246225992==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline


--===============3345942258246225992==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Jython-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-users

--===============3345942258246225992==--