Java version should be noted as explicit

[zkarj735]

The documentation for the Debug extention says "Java 11 is required via LPP 5770JV1 Option 19 (not Java from Yum)".

In the software world, I expect that means Java 11 or higher. I found out the hard way it is very literal. I find this odd but, if that's the requirement, I think this should be made crystal clear in the documentation.

"Java 11 is required via LPP 5770JV1 Option 19 (not Java from Yum and not any other version of Java)"

Java 17 has been around for a while now and is, in theory, the same but better. But it's not good enough to run the Debug Service.

[worksofliam]

Agree. I can do this soon.

[chrjorgensen]

I do not agree on this - IMHO IBM i is the king of backwards compatibility and Java is not. You will find several issues with Java programs on newer Java versions than intended, e.g. ACS on Temurin.

In my experience, software requirements are written similar to "Java 11 or newer is required...", if a newer version is allowed than the software version mentioned. When you pick components for your software stack, you avoid most problems if you stick to the exact version of the software mentioned. You may be lucky that newer version will also work, but if not mentioned specifically, e.g. "or higher" or "or newer", then you will have to use the specific version required.

I see this a lot in my Docker self-hosted services - you have to be very careful when choosing a Docker image for your stack. You often have to use PostgreSQL version 17 even though the newest version is 18.

So bottom line - if "newer" or "higher" is not mentioned, you can't expect the software to work if you install a newer or higher version. And you don't see "not any other version" anywhere in software requirement descriptions. So I think we should keep the documentation as is.

But I'm glad you found the issue with the debugger! 😃