Hi Matej,

My vote is "not to drop JDK 7 support", as Java EE7 requires the minimum Java version being 7. If you remove the JDK7 support, this will have big impact to the customer who are currently use JDK7.

Weld 3.x requires JDK 8, which is understandable.

Many thanks,
Emily
===========================
Emily Jiang
WebSphere Application Server, CDI & MicroProfile Development Lead
 
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278

Email: emijiang@uk.ibm.com
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB




From:        Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com>
To:        "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
Cc:        J J SNYDER <j.j.snyder@oracle.com>, Weld <weld-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Date:        26/02/2018 13:05
Subject:        Re: [weld-dev] To drop or not to drop JDK 7 support for Weld 2.4?
Sent by:        weld-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org

---

Valid point, it would definitely make sense to raise minor version in this case.

We are unsure if we will actually remove jdk 7 sipport, but at this point any request for backport
or any attempt at support for newer java versions presents a considerable pain because of JDK 7 support.
Therefore I concluded I will ask on this mail and see if it would be ok to eventually remove the support.

Matej

----- Original Message -----
> From: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> To: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Weld" <weld-dev@lists.jboss.org>, "J J SNYDER" <j.j.snyder@oracle.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:38:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [weld-dev] To drop or not to drop JDK 7 support for Weld 2.4?
>
> Seems weird to me that you would drop JDK support in a patch fix on 2.4.x.
> Seems more appropriate to keep 2.4.x on JDK 7, 2.5.x (if you ever create
> it) on JDK 8.  3.0.x already requires JDK 8.
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:18 AM Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > as you probably know, Weld 2.4 (CDI 1.2 impl) currently supports even JDK
> > 7.
> > We are currently considering dropping this limitation and moving to JDK 8
> > as minimal version.
> > >From what we know, some servers (such as WildFly) already require Java 8
> > to even boot up so this limitation is pretty much pointless there.
> >
> > Therefore, please let us know if dropping JDK 7 support presents a problem
> > for you or if you see any other reason for Weld 2.4 to stay JDK 7
> > compatible.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Matej
> > _______________________________________________
> > weld-dev mailing list
> > weld-dev@lists.jboss.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.jboss.org_mailman_listinfo_weld-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=jt2y5_gH2oPaja8Vt6NzAZV-iEo6D2jiWeuVYs0H-1U&m=eqnqnXgGwIduBcYC4-Ram6goyqgbpKDXXYbxQMW6gEk&s=53jnN5KF3unYZPdsa-7EYeTbWDJPqnX_S6Wkl40HPpA&e=
> >
>
_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.jboss.org_mailman_listinfo_weld-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=jt2y5_gH2oPaja8Vt6NzAZV-iEo6D2jiWeuVYs0H-1U&m=eqnqnXgGwIduBcYC4-Ram6goyqgbpKDXXYbxQMW6gEk&s=53jnN5KF3unYZPdsa-7EYeTbWDJPqnX_S6Wkl40HPpA&e=




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU