You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> on 2016/06/07 02:18:17 UTC
[crypto] On Java 6, really?
Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
Gary
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:11 PM Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello Sebb,
>
> sebb <se...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 18:09 Uhr:
>
> > Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
> >
> > Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
> >
> > If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
> > unnecessary for the initial release.
> >
>
> I think people have expressed in various ways that they don't want to work
> on projects which are stuck on dead Java version. I think we have to
> respect this.
>
> Benedikt
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > > I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move
> to
> > Java 7?
> > >
> > > That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
> > >>
> > >> Gary
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Marcelo
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
Hello Sebb,
sebb <se...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 19:27 Uhr:
> On 7 June 2016 at 18:11, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hello Sebb,
> >
> > sebb <se...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 18:09 Uhr:
> >
> >> Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
> >>
> >> Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
> >>
> >> If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
> >> unnecessary for the initial release.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >
> > I think people have expressed in various ways that they don't want to
> work
> > on projects which are stuck on dead Java version. I think we have to
> > respect this.
>
> I think you have misunderstood my point.
>
> I'm not saying that the code needs to stay on Java 6 for future releases.
>
> However, assuming that it is working OK on Java 6, it seems silly to
> insist that the developers update it to use Java 7 *now*.
>
> Especially since the code appears to be about ready for a release.
>
> Changing to Java 7 now would require additional work which would delay
> the release.
>
> But by all means move to Java 7 for the next release if the developers
> who are actually working on it agree that it is necessary.
>
Nicely put. I think we're on the same site here.
Benedikt
>
> > Benedikt
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >> > I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move
> to
> >> Java 7?
> >> >
> >> > That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java
> 6?
> >> >>
> >> >> Gary
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> >> >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >> >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> >> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> >> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> >> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Marcelo
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 7 June 2016 at 18:11, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello Sebb,
>
> sebb <se...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 18:09 Uhr:
>
>> Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
>>
>> Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
>>
>> If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
>> unnecessary for the initial release.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>
> I think people have expressed in various ways that they don't want to work
> on projects which are stuck on dead Java version. I think we have to
> respect this.
I think you have misunderstood my point.
I'm not saying that the code needs to stay on Java 6 for future releases.
However, assuming that it is working OK on Java 6, it seems silly to
insist that the developers update it to use Java 7 *now*.
Especially since the code appears to be about ready for a release.
Changing to Java 7 now would require additional work which would delay
the release.
But by all means move to Java 7 for the next release if the developers
who are actually working on it agree that it is necessary.
> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move to
>> Java 7?
>> >
>> > That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Marcelo
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
Hello Sebb,
sebb <se...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 18:09 Uhr:
> Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
>
> Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
>
> If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
> unnecessary for the initial release.
>
I think people have expressed in various ways that they don't want to work
on projects which are stuck on dead Java version. I think we have to
respect this.
Benedikt
>
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move to
> Java 7?
> >
> > That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >> --
> >> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Marcelo
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
unnecessary for the initial release.
On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move to Java 7?
>
> That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> Marcelo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com>.
I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move to Java 7?
That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
Marcelo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by ec...@zusammenkunft.net.
Hello,
IBM, SAP and HP also maintain/support Java 6 runtimes for still some time. The audience get smaller and we should not restrict developers to use/provide Java 8 features but if a component team is happy to start a new project with Java 6, why not... (especially since there are also Hadoop landscapes stuck with Java 6).
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
-----Original Message-----
From: sebb <se...@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <de...@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Di., 07 Juni 2016 21:27
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
updated to Java 7+.
This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
works on Java 6.
But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
of requiring a later version.
[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
>>
>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>
>
> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
> whatever they want.
>
> Jochen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by "Gangumalla, Uma" <um...@intel.com>.
On 6/14/16, 1:23 AM, "Gary Gregory" <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Gangumalla, Uma
><um...@intel.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
>> If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
>> be good idea IMO.
>>
>> I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
>> (just a question)
>>
>
>1.0 is 1.0. If we want an alpha, we must label is as such, for example
>1.0-alpha1, 1.0-beta1. There is no 1.0 is an alpha and 1.1 is a "real"
>release.
Yeah, right on naming.
What others think on that?
>
>Gary
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Uma
>>
>> On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
>>Matt
>> >for all your input.
>> >
>> >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
>> >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
>> >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >Dapeng
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
>> >To: Commons Developers List
>> >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>> >
>> >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
>> >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
>> >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
>> >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
>> >
>> >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6
>>updates.
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
>> >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
>> >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to
>> >> > be added to Java
>> >> so I
>> >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
>> >> > there
>> >> is a
>> >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
>> >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site
>> >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
>> >> > appropriate Java versions.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ralph
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
>> >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
>> >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
>> >> > > still works on Java 6.
>> >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
>> >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > [1]
>> >> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
>> >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
>> >> > >>> 2016
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
>> >> > >>>> Java
>> >> 6?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
>> >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
>> >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
>> >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Jochen
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
><http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Gangumalla, Uma <um...@intel.com>
wrote:
> Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
> be good idea IMO.
>
> I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
> (just a question)
>
1.0 is 1.0. If we want an alpha, we must label is as such, for example
1.0-alpha1, 1.0-beta1. There is no 1.0 is an alpha and 1.1 is a "real"
release.
Gary
>
> Regards,
> Uma
>
> On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and Matt
> >for all your input.
> >
> >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
> >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
> >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
> >
> >Regards
> >Dapeng
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
> >To: Commons Developers List
> >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> >
> >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
> >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
> >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
> >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
> >
> >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
> >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
> >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to
> >> > be added to Java
> >> so I
> >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
> >> > there
> >> is a
> >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site
> >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
> >> > appropriate Java versions.
> >> >
> >> > Ralph
> >> >
> >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
> >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
> >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> >> > >
> >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
> >> > > still works on Java 6.
> >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
> >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]
> >> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> >> > >
> >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
> >> > >>> 2016
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
> >> > >>>> Java
> >> 6?
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
> >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Jochen
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, 10:57 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2016 7:51 AM, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The trick is if we want to require a major version upgrade to bump JDK
> > levels. That's why you'd want to bump it now if possible.
>
> We've not required major version bumps for Java bumps in the past.
>
> Gary
>
Required or not, it's certainly a more pleasant experience for users with
moderate expectations to bump at major versions.
>
RE: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com>.
Thank all for the comments. I will file a jira to update CRYPTO to JDK 1.7.
Regards
Dapeng
-----Original Message-----
From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 9:35 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
On 15 June 2016 at 13:48, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> If it's compiled at a higher target version, it's not a drop-in
> replacement. They must upgrade their JRE.
Only if their JRE is currently lower than the target version.
So whether it will affect many users depends on the JRE upgrade bump.
i.e. at present a minimum target of Java 8 is likely to affect many more installations than a min target of Java 7.
And an update to Java 6 is not likely to affect as many.
> One might argue that's actually
> *less* backward compatible. We've had this debate before. I don't
> really care which way we go, but let's make sure we stay true to the
> philosophy (if we want to maintain that philosophy).
Since Java is upwards compatible, generally hosts can be upgraded if necessary.
This is very different from changing Maven coords or package names, which have a much more profound effect.
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 2016 7:51 AM, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The trick is if we want to require a major version upgrade to bump
>> > JDK levels. That's why you'd want to bump it now if possible.
>>
>> We've not required major version bumps for Java bumps in the past.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'd prefer to get to 1.7 as soon as possible, but if the API is
>> > > ready
>> for a
>> > > 1.0 release already, we could wait for 1.1 or 1.2 before going
>> > > full
>> 1.7.
>> > >
>> > > On 14 June 2016 at 06:16, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1 to JDK7 on crypto
>> > > > On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
>> > > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6,
>> > > > > > dropping now
>> > > > should
>> > > > > be good idea IMO.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on
>> > > > > upgrading JDK
>> to
>> > > > > 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is there anyone have other opinions?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards
>> > > > > Dapeng
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
>> > > > > To: Commons Developers List
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
>> > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping
>> > > > > now
>> > > should
>> > > > > be good idea IMO.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as
>> > > > > Alpha
>> right?
>> > > > > (just a question)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > Uma
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki,
>> > > > > >Ralph
>> and
>> > > > > >Matt for all your input.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
>> > > > > >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we
>> > > > > >wouldn't
>> > > support
>> > > > > >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Regards
>> > > > > >Dapeng
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
>> > > > > >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
>> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
>> > > > > >To: Commons Developers List
>> > > > > >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6
>> > > > > >are not upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be
>> > > > > >adding in new dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come
>> > > > > >across lately has
>> been in
>> > > > > >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory
>> > > > > ><ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get
>> > > > > >> Java 6
>> > > > updates.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Gary
>> > > > > >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <
>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>> >
>> > > > > >>wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support
>> > > > > >> > dates
>> should
>> > > > > >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many
>> > > > > >> > users of
>> that
>> > > > > >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features
>> > > > > >> > are
>> going
>> > > to
>> > > > > >> > be added to Java
>> > > > > >> so I
>> > > > > >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either.
>> If
>> > > > > >> > there
>> > > > > >> is a
>> > > > > >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do
>> > > > > >> > it on a branch of the the release for that version of
>> > > > > >> > Java. The web
>> site
>> > > > > >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component
>> support
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> > appropriate Java versions.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Ralph
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec
>> > > > > >> > > 2018
>> [1] I
>> > > > > >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that
>> > > > > >> > > cannot
>> yet
>> > > > > >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all
>> > > > > >> > > Commons
>> code
>> > > > > >> > > still works on Java 6.
>> > > > > >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating
>> > > > > >> > > the pros
>> and
>> > > > > >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > [1]
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
>> > > > > >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7.
>> Juni
>> > > > > >> > >>> 2016
>> > > > > >> > >>>
>> > > > > >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead
>> > > > > >> > >>>> platform
>> > > like
>> > > > > >> > >>>> Java
>> > > > > >> 6?
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more
>> > > > > >> > >> than welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our
>> > > > > >> > >> latest
>> > > > > >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should
>> > > > > >> > >> care
>> for?
>> > > > > >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> Jochen
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >> > >> -
>> > > > > >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >> > > -
>> > > > > >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > --
>> > > > > >> > -
>> > > > > >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > > > >> > dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > > > >> > dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >--
>> > > > > >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> > >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 15 June 2016 at 13:48, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> If it's compiled at a higher target version, it's not a drop-in
> replacement. They must upgrade their JRE.
Only if their JRE is currently lower than the target version.
So whether it will affect many users depends on the JRE upgrade bump.
i.e. at present a minimum target of Java 8 is likely to affect many
more installations than a min target of Java 7.
And an update to Java 6 is not likely to affect as many.
> One might argue that's actually
> *less* backward compatible. We've had this debate before. I don't really
> care which way we go, but let's make sure we stay true to the philosophy
> (if we want to maintain that philosophy).
Since Java is upwards compatible, generally hosts can be upgraded if necessary.
This is very different from changing Maven coords or package names,
which have a much more profound effect.
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 2016 7:51 AM, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The trick is if we want to require a major version upgrade to bump JDK
>> > levels. That's why you'd want to bump it now if possible.
>>
>> We've not required major version bumps for Java bumps in the past.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'd prefer to get to 1.7 as soon as possible, but if the API is ready
>> for a
>> > > 1.0 release already, we could wait for 1.1 or 1.2 before going full
>> 1.7.
>> > >
>> > > On 14 June 2016 at 06:16, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1 to JDK7 on crypto
>> > > > On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
>> > > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
>> > > > should
>> > > > > be good idea IMO.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK
>> to
>> > > > > 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is there anyone have other opinions?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards
>> > > > > Dapeng
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
>> > > > > To: Commons Developers List
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
>> > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
>> > > should
>> > > > > be good idea IMO.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha
>> right?
>> > > > > (just a question)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > Uma
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph
>> and
>> > > > > >Matt for all your input.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
>> > > > > >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't
>> > > support
>> > > > > >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Regards
>> > > > > >Dapeng
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
>> > > > > >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
>> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
>> > > > > >To: Commons Developers List
>> > > > > >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
>> > > > > >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
>> > > > > >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has
>> been in
>> > > > > >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6
>> > > > updates.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Gary
>> > > > > >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <
>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>> >
>> > > > > >>wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates
>> should
>> > > > > >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of
>> that
>> > > > > >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are
>> going
>> > > to
>> > > > > >> > be added to Java
>> > > > > >> so I
>> > > > > >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either.
>> If
>> > > > > >> > there
>> > > > > >> is a
>> > > > > >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
>> > > > > >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web
>> site
>> > > > > >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component
>> support
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> > appropriate Java versions.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Ralph
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018
>> [1] I
>> > > > > >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot
>> yet
>> > > > > >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons
>> code
>> > > > > >> > > still works on Java 6.
>> > > > > >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros
>> and
>> > > > > >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > [1]
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
>> > > > > >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7.
>> Juni
>> > > > > >> > >>> 2016
>> > > > > >> > >>>
>> > > > > >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform
>> > > like
>> > > > > >> > >>>> Java
>> > > > > >> 6?
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
>> > > > > >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
>> > > > > >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care
>> for?
>> > > > > >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> Jochen
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >> > >> -
>> > > > > >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >> > > -
>> > > > > >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >> > -
>> > > > > >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >--
>> > > > > >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> > >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
If it's compiled at a higher target version, it's not a drop-in
replacement. They must upgrade their JRE. One might argue that's actually
*less* backward compatible. We've had this debate before. I don't really
care which way we go, but let's make sure we stay true to the philosophy
(if we want to maintain that philosophy).
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2016 7:51 AM, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The trick is if we want to require a major version upgrade to bump JDK
> > levels. That's why you'd want to bump it now if possible.
>
> We've not required major version bumps for Java bumps in the past.
>
> Gary
>
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd prefer to get to 1.7 as soon as possible, but if the API is ready
> for a
> > > 1.0 release already, we could wait for 1.1 or 1.2 before going full
> 1.7.
> > >
> > > On 14 June 2016 at 06:16, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to JDK7 on crypto
> > > > On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
> > > > should
> > > > > be good idea IMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK
> to
> > > > > 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anyone have other opinions?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Dapeng
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
> > > > > To: Commons Developers List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> > > > >
> > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
> > > should
> > > > > be good idea IMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha
> right?
> > > > > (just a question)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Uma
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph
> and
> > > > > >Matt for all your input.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
> > > > > >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't
> > > support
> > > > > >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Regards
> > > > > >Dapeng
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
> > > > > >To: Commons Developers List
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
> > > > > >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
> > > > > >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has
> been in
> > > > > >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6
> > > > updates.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Gary
> > > > > >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> >
> > > > > >>wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates
> should
> > > > > >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of
> that
> > > > > >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are
> going
> > > to
> > > > > >> > be added to Java
> > > > > >> so I
> > > > > >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either.
> If
> > > > > >> > there
> > > > > >> is a
> > > > > >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> > > > > >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web
> site
> > > > > >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component
> support
> > > the
> > > > > >> > appropriate Java versions.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Ralph
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018
> [1] I
> > > > > >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot
> yet
> > > > > >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons
> code
> > > > > >> > > still works on Java 6.
> > > > > >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros
> and
> > > > > >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > [1]
> > > > > >> > >
> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> > > > > >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7.
> Juni
> > > > > >> > >>> 2016
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform
> > > like
> > > > > >> > >>>> Java
> > > > > >> 6?
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> > > > > >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> > > > > >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care
> for?
> > > > > >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Jochen
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >> > >> -
> > > > > >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >> > > -
> > > > > >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >> > -
> > > > > >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--
> > > > > >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >
>
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 14, 2016 7:51 AM, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> The trick is if we want to require a major version upgrade to bump JDK
> levels. That's why you'd want to bump it now if possible.
We've not required major version bumps for Java bumps in the past.
Gary
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd prefer to get to 1.7 as soon as possible, but if the API is ready
for a
> > 1.0 release already, we could wait for 1.1 or 1.2 before going full 1.7.
> >
> > On 14 June 2016 at 06:16, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to JDK7 on crypto
> > > On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
> > > should
> > > > be good idea IMO.
> > > >
> > > > Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK
to
> > > > 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
> > > >
> > > > Is there anyone have other opinions?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Dapeng
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
> > > > To: Commons Developers List
> > > > Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> > > >
> > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
> > should
> > > > be good idea IMO.
> > > >
> > > > I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha
right?
> > > > (just a question)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Uma
> > > >
> > > > On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
> > > > >Matt for all your input.
> > > > >
> > > > >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
> > > > >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't
> > support
> > > > >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > >Regards
> > > > >Dapeng
> > > > >
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
> > > > >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
> > > > >To: Commons Developers List
> > > > >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> > > > >
> > > > >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
> > > > >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
> > > > >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has
been in
> > > > >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
> > > > >
> > > > >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6
> > > updates.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Gary
> > > > >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>
> > > > >>wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates
should
> > > > >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of
that
> > > > >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are
going
> > to
> > > > >> > be added to Java
> > > > >> so I
> > > > >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either.
If
> > > > >> > there
> > > > >> is a
> > > > >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> > > > >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web
site
> > > > >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support
> > the
> > > > >> > appropriate Java versions.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Ralph
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018
[1] I
> > > > >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot
yet
> > > > >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons
code
> > > > >> > > still works on Java 6.
> > > > >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros
and
> > > > >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > [1]
> > > > >> > >
> > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> > > > >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7.
Juni
> > > > >> > >>> 2016
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform
> > like
> > > > >> > >>>> Java
> > > > >> 6?
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> > > > >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> > > > >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care
for?
> > > > >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Jochen
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> > >> -
> > > > >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> > > -
> > > > >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> > -
> > > > >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
The trick is if we want to require a major version upgrade to bump JDK
levels. That's why you'd want to bump it now if possible.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd prefer to get to 1.7 as soon as possible, but if the API is ready for a
> 1.0 release already, we could wait for 1.1 or 1.2 before going full 1.7.
>
> On 14 June 2016 at 06:16, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 to JDK7 on crypto
> > On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
> > should
> > > be good idea IMO.
> > >
> > > Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK to
> > > 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
> > >
> > > Is there anyone have other opinions?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Dapeng
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
> > > To: Commons Developers List
> > > Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> > >
> > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
> should
> > > be good idea IMO.
> > >
> > > I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
> > > (just a question)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Uma
> > >
> > > On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
> > > >Matt for all your input.
> > > >
> > > >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
> > > >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't
> support
> > > >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
> > > >
> > > >Regards
> > > >Dapeng
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
> > > >To: Commons Developers List
> > > >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> > > >
> > > >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
> > > >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
> > > >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
> > > >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
> > > >
> > > >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6
> > updates.
> > > >>
> > > >> Gary
> > > >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> > > >>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
> > > >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
> > > >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going
> to
> > > >> > be added to Java
> > > >> so I
> > > >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
> > > >> > there
> > > >> is a
> > > >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> > > >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site
> > > >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support
> the
> > > >> > appropriate Java versions.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ralph
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
> > > >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
> > > >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
> > > >> > > still works on Java 6.
> > > >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
> > > >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > [1]
> > > >> > >
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> > > >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
> > > >> > >>> 2016
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform
> like
> > > >> > >>>> Java
> > > >> 6?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> > > >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> > > >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
> > > >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Jochen
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > >> -
> > > >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > -
> > > >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I'd prefer to get to 1.7 as soon as possible, but if the API is ready for a
1.0 release already, we could wait for 1.1 or 1.2 before going full 1.7.
On 14 June 2016 at 06:16, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 to JDK7 on crypto
> On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now
> should
> > be good idea IMO.
> >
> > Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK to
> > 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
> >
> > Is there anyone have other opinions?
> >
> > Regards
> > Dapeng
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
> > To: Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> >
> > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
> > be good idea IMO.
> >
> > I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
> > (just a question)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Uma
> >
> > On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
> > >Matt for all your input.
> > >
> > >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
> > >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
> > >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >Dapeng
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
> > >To: Commons Developers List
> > >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> > >
> > >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
> > >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
> > >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
> > >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
> > >
> > >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6
> updates.
> > >>
> > >> Gary
> > >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
> > >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
> > >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to
> > >> > be added to Java
> > >> so I
> > >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
> > >> > there
> > >> is a
> > >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> > >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site
> > >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
> > >> > appropriate Java versions.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ralph
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
> > >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
> > >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
> > >> > > still works on Java 6.
> > >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
> > >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [1]
> > >> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> > >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
> > >> > >>> 2016
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
> > >> > >>>> Java
> > >> 6?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> > >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> > >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
> > >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Jochen
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > >> -
> > >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > -
> > >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > -
> > >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
RE: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
+1 to JDK7 on crypto
On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
> > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
> be good idea IMO.
>
> Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK to
> 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
>
> Is there anyone have other opinions?
>
> Regards
> Dapeng
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>
> Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
> be good idea IMO.
>
> I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
> (just a question)
>
> Regards,
> Uma
>
> On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
> >Matt for all your input.
> >
> >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
> >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
> >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
> >
> >Regards
> >Dapeng
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
> >To: Commons Developers List
> >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> >
> >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
> >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
> >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
> >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
> >
> >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
> >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
> >> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to
> >> > be added to Java
> >> so I
> >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
> >> > there
> >> is a
> >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site
> >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
> >> > appropriate Java versions.
> >> >
> >> > Ralph
> >> >
> >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
> >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
> >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> >> > >
> >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
> >> > > still works on Java 6.
> >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
> >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]
> >> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> >> > >
> >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> >> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
> >> > >>> 2016
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
> >> > >>>> Java
> >> 6?
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
> >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Jochen
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >> -
> >> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > -
> >> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > -
> >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
RE: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com>.
> Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should be good idea IMO.
Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK to 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
Is there anyone have other opinions?
Regards
Dapeng
-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should be good idea IMO.
I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
(just a question)
Regards,
Uma
On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
>Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
>Matt for all your input.
>
>How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
>release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
>JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
>
>Regards
>Dapeng
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
>To: Commons Developers List
>Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>
>I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
>upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
>dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
>legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
>
>On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>>
>> Gary
>> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
>> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
>> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to
>> > be added to Java
>> so I
>> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
>> > there
>> is a
>> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
>> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site
>> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
>> > appropriate Java versions.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>> > >
>> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
>> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
>> > > be updated to Java 7+.
>> > >
>> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
>> > > still works on Java 6.
>> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
>> > > cons of requiring a later version.
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>> > >
>> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
>> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
>> > >>> 2016
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
>> > >>>> Java
>> 6?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
>> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
>> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
>> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jochen
>> > >>
>> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> -
>> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > -
>> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > -
>> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by "Gangumalla, Uma" <um...@intel.com>.
Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
be good idea IMO.
I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
(just a question)
Regards,
Uma
On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com> wrote:
>Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and Matt
>for all your input.
>
>How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
>release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
>JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
>
>Regards
>Dapeng
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
>To: Commons Developers List
>Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>
>I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
>upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
>dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
>legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
>
>On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>>
>> Gary
>> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
>> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
>> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to
>> > be added to Java
>> so I
>> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
>> > there
>> is a
>> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
>> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site
>> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
>> > appropriate Java versions.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>> > >
>> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
>> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
>> > > be updated to Java 7+.
>> > >
>> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
>> > > still works on Java 6.
>> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
>> > > cons of requiring a later version.
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>> > >
>> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
>> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
>> > >>> 2016
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
>> > >>>> Java
>> 6?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
>> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
>> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
>> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jochen
>> > >>
>> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by "Sun, Dapeng" <da...@intel.com>.
Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and Matt for all your input.
How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
Regards
Dapeng
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>
> Gary
> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should
> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
> > version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to
> > be added to Java
> so I
> > don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
> > there
> is a
> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> > branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site
> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
> > appropriate Java versions.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > >
> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> > >
> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
> > > still works on Java 6.
> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > >
> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> > > <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
> > >>> 2016
> > >>>
> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
> > >>>> Java
> 6?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> > >>
> > >> Jochen
> > >>
> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >>
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not upgrading
anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new dependencies. Every
Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in legacy maintenance mode
(just like Java 6 itself).
On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>
> Gary
> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should really
> > mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that version might
> > still exist. Basically, no new features are going to be added to Java
> so I
> > don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If there
> is a
> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a branch of
> > the the release for that version of Java. The web site should clearly
> > indicate which versions of the component support the appropriate Java
> > versions.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > >
> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
> > > I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
> > > updated to Java 7+.
> > >
> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
> > > works on Java 6.
> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
> > > of requiring a later version.
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > >
> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
> > >>>
> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java
> 6?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
> > >> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
> > >> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
> > >> whatever they want.
> > >>
> > >> Jochen
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
Gary
On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should really
> mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that version might
> still exist. Basically, no new features are going to be added to Java so I
> don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If there is a
> bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a branch of
> the the release for that version of Java. The web site should clearly
> indicate which versions of the component support the appropriate Java
> versions.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> >
> > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
> > I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
> > updated to Java 7+.
> >
> > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
> > works on Java 6.
> > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
> > of requiring a later version.
> >
> > [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> >
> > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
> >>>
> >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
> >>
> >>
> >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
> >> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
> >> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
> >> whatever they want.
> >>
> >> Jochen
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that version might still exist. Basically, no new features are going to be added to Java so I don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If there is a bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a branch of the the release for that version of Java. The web site should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the appropriate Java versions.
Ralph
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>
> The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
> I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
> updated to Java 7+.
>
> This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
> works on Java 6.
> But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
> of requiring a later version.
>
> [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
>>>
>>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>>
>>
>> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
>> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
>> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
>> whatever they want.
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
updated to Java 7+.
This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
works on Java 6.
But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
of requiring a later version.
[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
>>
>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>
>
> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
> whatever they want.
>
> Jochen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
> Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
>
>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
whatever they want.
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
Hello Gary,
Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um
04:18 Uhr:
> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>
As far as I understand the whole point of crypto was to bring this kind of
crypto performance to Java 6.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>