On p and z openj9 is known to perform better than openjdk.  The following containers currently install openjdk and should instead install openj9 on p and z:

• codeready-workspaces-plugin-java11
• codeready-workspaces-plugin-java8
• codeready-workspaces (server image now installs JDK11 on ubi8-minimal, rather than using openjdk image from RHCC)

According to the latest rules from EXD/RCM/SPMM (whatever they're called now), j9 images must have different delivery repo names in RHCC to differentiate them from openjdk ones.

Thus, if we use j9 images in CRW 2.4, they'll be:

• plugin-java8-rhel8 and plugin-openj9-8-rhel8 (possibly deprecated due to https://github.com/eclipse/che/issues/16851)
• plugin-java11-rhel8 and plugin-openj9-11-rhel8
• server-rhel8 and server-openj9-rhel8 (unless we can just use jdk here regardless of the performance?)
• crw-2-rhel8-operator-metadata and crw-2-openj9-rhel8-operator-metadata (currently new bundle format doesn't support multistage metadata image builds, though appstream format did, so this is a challenge to be solved)

along with these 3rd party images we reuse as is:

• registry.redhat.io/rh-sso-7/sso74-openshift-rhel8:7.4
• registry.redhat.io/jboss-eap-7/eap73-openjdk8-openshift-rhel7:7.3.1 (java8 on rhel7 because Fuse needs it)
• registry.redhat.io/jboss-eap-7/eap-xp1-openjdk11-openshift-rhel8:1.0-3
  vs.
• https://catalog.redhat.com/software/containers/rh-sso-7/sso74-openj9-openshift-rhel8/5e7e0430bed8bd66f8390b4e
• https://catalog.redhat.com/software/containers/jboss-eap-7/eap73-openj9-11-openshift-rhel8/5e79c76bdd19c778961230ed (not java8, won't work for Fuse)
• registry-proxy.engineering.redhat.com/rh-osbs/jboss-eap-7-eap-xp1-openj9-11-openshift-rhel8:1.0-3 (coming soon to RHCC?)