-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Checking if APR is available logs a warning on Java 24 #44033
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
As part of addressing this, we should remove |
Another option is to drop APR when running on Java 24 (actually Java 22) onwards and use the |
We're going to look at option 2 from Andy's list, but we need to think of a good property name. Tagging as |
I have some changes in this branch which adds a on Java < 24: Calls You can also use WDYT? |
I think |
That's clarified in the JavaDoc of that property - it only works on Java < 24, on Java >= 24 it's equal to |
That may help when writing the configuration in an IDE that makes use of the metadata. When reading it, I still think it might be confusing unfortunately. I'm not sure that this is that much better, but what about The ideal would be that we default to |
With 3.4.4, With 3.5.x, I've added something to the upgrade notes. |
See spring-projectsgh-44033 Signed-off-by: youngjin_dev <qazkyj0310@gmail.com>
The above is triggered within
org.apache.catalina.core.AprLifecycleListener.isAprAvailable()
. It occurs whether or not APR is available. We should do something about this as part of adding support for Java 24. We could:--enable-native-access
and only add the listener when it's set1 would be a breaking change for those who're already using APR. 2 wouldn't break any existing deployments as a Java 24 upgrade would be required to see a change in behavior. 3 might not be possible and, even if we can detect the flag, knowing that the module name's correct might not be possible. 2's perhaps the least bad option. If we did that for 3.4.x we could then perhaps make it opt-in for everyone in 3.5.
I'd like to see what the rest of the team thinks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: