Re: Maven Artifact JDK Suffix

On 18 January 2016 at 04:52, Mikko Tiihonen <
mikko(dot)tiihonen(at)nitorcreations(dot)com> wrote:

> On 01/16/2016 04:55 PM, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov <
> <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> >* jre07-9.4.1207
>>
>
> We'd probably better follow "plug&pray" development style and go ahead
>> with jre6/jre7/jre8 then.
>>
>
> Yes I guess we don't really have much other choice besides complicating
> things quite a bit with separate dependencies for the API itself (and/or
> separate artifacts per JDK).
>
> We should add a note to the README about this as well. I'm sure someone
> will eventually run into the issue of a dependency specifying a newer
> driver version with a lower JDK. Would be nice to have it documented
> somewhere that the solution is to make sure the top level Maven project
> specifies the latest version for the desired JDK version.
>
>
> I'd like to point that the latest java9 pre-release (jre9 build 100)
> contains support for Multi-Release jars <http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/238>
> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/238. This means we can put both jre8 and
> jre9 specific classes to same jar file. So we only need the jre6 and jre7
> for legacy reasons. For users this is a good news since they no longer have
> to care about their jre version - the single jar just works for them, even
> after they update the jre.
>
> So my proposal is to not add jre8 qualifier to the current jre8 jars. We
> just need to add support to the build for the multi-release jars before
> jre9 is released next year. I'm certain that a proper maven tooling to do
> that will materialize in time.
>

So I guess that means we really don't need the suffix.

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com