Travisoraclejdk7 support seems removed (seehere).
Could be done in // PR if not relevant here.

Please move the OpenJDK 7 commit to a separate PR.

About openjdk7: already inissue-fix branch (commit:54f6ca0d9c7d0940f84610788f3e55c2548dc5c4).

Other PR#42, to propose an approach forcmd usage if wanted (consensus ? hardcode acmd.exe /X /C for a simpleecho disturb me 😜).

@axel3rd Please fix conflicts. Thanks.

@axel3rd Please fix the conflicts. Thanks.

@mkarg : Sorry, not able todo that in this PR, because is >2 years old so I have deleted the fork since this time.

@axel3rd Please fix the conflicts. Thanks.

@mkarg : Sorry, not able todo that in this PR, because is >2 years old so I have deleted the fork since this time.

That's ok.@mkarg Honestly, I don't see a reason to have a shell wrapper at all, but useProcessBuilder. This worked for me for years. Those wrappers only cause confusion and issues which I have to fix in Maven SCM.

@axel3rd Please fix the conflicts. Thanks.
@mkarg : Sorry, not able todo that in this PR, because is >2 years old so I have deleted the fork since this time.
That's ok.@mkarg Honestly, I don't see a reason to have a shell wrapper at all, but useProcessBuilder. This worked for me for years. Those wrappers only cause confusion and issues which I have to fix in Maven SCM.

My target is to cleaup the open PRs, so either we merge or drop them or turn them intodrafts, but not keep them open for
review for more years in an unclear state. To reach that goal, first the original authors need to resolve conflicts to allow reviews ontop master. I am looking into theactual change once the code at least will compile again.

My target is to cleaup the open PRs, [...] not keep them open for review for more years in an unclear state

Fully agree with that 👍

I don't see a reason to have a shell wrapper at all, but use ProcessBuilder

I understand the content of this PR is not really relevant, so closing.

My target is to cleaup the open PRs, [...] not keep them open for review for more years in an unclear state

Fully agree with that 👍

I don't see a reason to have a shell wrapper at all, but use ProcessBuilder

I understand the content of this PR is not really relevant, so closing.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that our concept is wrong from begin with.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that our concept is wrong from begin with.

Ok, sorry, misunderstanding from my side.

I will provide some new compiling PR for#41 &#42 and not delete the fork until status, allowing review.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that our concept is wrong from begin with.

Ok, sorry, misunderstanding from my side.

I will provide some new compiling PR for#41 &#42 and not delete the fork until status, allowing review.

Thanks! Take your time! No need to hurry.

See#109 for following.