Re: Bug#895619: plexus-compiler: use --release instead of -source/-target for jdk9+ when setting defaults
On 07/02/2018 05:26 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 13/04/2018 à 17:14, Tiago Stürmer Daitx a écrit :
>
>> plexus-compiler currently will default -source and/or -target to 1.7
>> whenever the following occours:
>> 1) whenever either has not being set
>> 2) whenever either has been set to 1.6 or earlier
>>
>> This patch modifies the detection logic in order to be able to set the
>> '--release' flag when (and only when):
>> - the '--release' is *not* set
>> - AND both -source and -target are being set to a default value
>> - AND the running jvm is jdk9 or newer
>>
>> This prevents errors such as the infamous "Method
>> flip()Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer; does not exist in class java.nio.ByteBuffer"
>> that is caused by building with openjdk-9 with -source set without
>> setting the proper bootclasspath [1,2]. JEP-247 [3] has provided the
>> --release to prevent such issues and should be used instead of -source
>> whenever the javac being used is jdk9 or higher.
>
> Setting the --release option automatically is now implemented in Maven
> (since plexus-compiler/2.8.4-1) and Ant (since ant/1.10.3-2), and it
> triggers a new issue unfortunately. When the --release option is set the
> internal JDK APIs (com.sun.*, sun.misc.*) are no longer available, and
> this breaks several packages (axis for example, see #902861). The same
> code compiles fine with '-source <n> -target <n>' though.
>
> I'm not sure we can fix all the errors reported and we may have to
> revert the use of the --release option in Ant/Maven. That would mean the
> packages built with OpenJDK 10/11 are unlikely to run with OpenJDK 8
> (the binary incompatibility in the ByteBuffer class affects quite a lot
> of code).
JOSM fails to build do this change in ant, and unless there is an easy
way to fix the build I'm in favor of reverting the --release change.
How can the usage of sun.security.util & sun.security.x509 be kept in
josm with the new ant?
Kind Regards,
Bas
Reply to: