You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sling.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2013/01/31 17:47:52 UTC
[VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Hi,
we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
and see where we all are.
I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
proposed a way for this some time ago).
Please cast your votes :)
Regards
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Ian Boston <ie...@tfd.co.uk>.
+1
Ian
On Friday, February 1, 2013, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks/Regards
> Felix
>
> Am 31.01.2013 um 10:47 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
> > this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
> > and see where we all are.
> >
> > I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> > to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> > module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
> >
> > We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> > proposed a way for this some time ago).
> >
> > Please cast your votes :)
> >
> > Regards
> > Carsten
> > --
> > Carsten Ziegeler
> > cziegeler@apache.org <javascript:;>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
+1
Thanks/Regards
Felix
Am 31.01.2013 um 10:47 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> Hi,
>
> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
> and see where we all are.
>
> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>
> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>
> Please cast your votes :)
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense....
That was quick..+1
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
If we set Java 6 as the minimum for all modules, this creates
unnecessary work to ship a bugfix or enhancements to users running on
Java 5. And we have a lot of them.
The difference between Java 5 and Java 6 in terms of the languange or
the libraries is not that huge, so I think there is rarely a need to
really require Java 6 for a module. If it does, it's fine - but if not
we should not disable it from running in existing installations per
default
Carsten
2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
> -0
>
> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum across
> the board and be done with it.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
>> and see where we all are.
>>
>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>>
>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>>
>> Please cast your votes :)
>>
>> Regards
>> Carsten
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
[VOTE RESULT] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Hi,
thanks everyone - the vote to drop Java 5 support in general passed
with +1 votes: Justin Edelson, Mike Müller, Ian Boston, Felix
Meschberger, Jeff Young, Antonio, Sanso, Carsten Ziegeler, and
Bertrand Delacretaz.
I'll create an issue for this and update our parent pom with some support
Carsten
2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Deal
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> 2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
>> > Well again, I'm looking at Robert sending an email rather than just
>> > creating a patch.
>> >
>> > How about this - put this information (modules build against Java 5 by
>> > default, but feel free to change it by doing XYZ) in the root README.
>> >
>> > If no one asks about it again, then my concern will have been
>> unnecessary.
>> > If we get another email like Robert's asking for permission, then we
>> > revisit this.
>> >
>> > WDYT?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't see why this makes contributions harder: develop however you
>> >> want and contribute. The only minor thing is, as by default we still
>> >> target java 5 for a module and you use java 6, the build will fail,
>> >> you update the pom (a single property), build again and are happy. Not
>> >> really hard.
>> >>
>> >> But I don't want to be a road blocker here: if the majority thinks we
>> >> should not support Java 5 at all anymore, let's do it.
>> >>
>> >> Carsten
>> >>
>> >> 2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
>> >> > I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes
>> >> > potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they
>> need
>> >> to
>> >> > be.
>> >> >
>> >> > I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make
>> >> changes
>> >> > to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting
>> time
>> >> > worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or
>> not
>> >> > to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6.
>> >> >
>> >> > In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it
>> easier to
>> >> > provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it
>> easier
>> >> for
>> >> > people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the
>> latter.
>> >> >
>> >> > Justin
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler
>> >> >> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I
>> >> >> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the
>> hasle
>> >> >> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty
>> >> >> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well.
>> >> >> I'm just talking about individual modules.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Carsten
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for
>> Java 6
>> >> >> and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Regards
>> >> >> > Felix
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> -0
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum
>> >> >> across
>> >> >> >> the board and be done with it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <
>> >> >> cziegeler@apache.org>wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> Hi,
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we
>> >> discussed
>> >> >> >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a
>> >> vote
>> >> >> >>> and see where we all are.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to
>> stick
>> >> >> >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but
>> each
>> >> >> >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes
>> sense.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think
>> Felix
>> >> >> >>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Please cast your votes :)
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Regards
>> >> >> >>> Carsten
>> >> >> >>> --
>> >> >> >>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> >> >> >>> cziegeler@apache.org
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Carsten Ziegeler
>> >> >> cziegeler@apache.org
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Carsten Ziegeler
>> >> cziegeler@apache.org
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>.
+1
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
> Deal
>
> Carsten
>
> 2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
> > Well again, I'm looking at Robert sending an email rather than just
> > creating a patch.
> >
> > How about this - put this information (modules build against Java 5 by
> > default, but feel free to change it by doing XYZ) in the root README.
> >
> > If no one asks about it again, then my concern will have been
> unnecessary.
> > If we get another email like Robert's asking for permission, then we
> > revisit this.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see why this makes contributions harder: develop however you
> >> want and contribute. The only minor thing is, as by default we still
> >> target java 5 for a module and you use java 6, the build will fail,
> >> you update the pom (a single property), build again and are happy. Not
> >> really hard.
> >>
> >> But I don't want to be a road blocker here: if the majority thinks we
> >> should not support Java 5 at all anymore, let's do it.
> >>
> >> Carsten
> >>
> >> 2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
> >> > I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes
> >> > potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they
> need
> >> to
> >> > be.
> >> >
> >> > I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make
> >> changes
> >> > to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting
> time
> >> > worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or
> not
> >> > to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6.
> >> >
> >> > In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it
> easier to
> >> > provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it
> easier
> >> for
> >> > people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the
> latter.
> >> >
> >> > Justin
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <
> cziegeler@apache.org
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler
> >> >> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I
> >> >> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the
> hasle
> >> >> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5?
> >> >>
> >> >> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty
> >> >> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well.
> >> >> I'm just talking about individual modules.
> >> >>
> >> >> Carsten
> >> >>
> >> >> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>:
> >> >> > Hi
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for
> Java 6
> >> >> and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards
> >> >> > Felix
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> -0
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum
> >> >> across
> >> >> >> the board and be done with it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <
> >> >> cziegeler@apache.org>wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we
> >> discussed
> >> >> >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a
> >> vote
> >> >> >>> and see where we all are.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to
> stick
> >> >> >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but
> each
> >> >> >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes
> sense.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think
> Felix
> >> >> >>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Please cast your votes :)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Regards
> >> >> >>> Carsten
> >> >> >>> --
> >> >> >>> Carsten Ziegeler
> >> >> >>> cziegeler@apache.org
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Carsten Ziegeler
> >> >> cziegeler@apache.org
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carsten Ziegeler
> >> cziegeler@apache.org
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Deal
Carsten
2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
> Well again, I'm looking at Robert sending an email rather than just
> creating a patch.
>
> How about this - put this information (modules build against Java 5 by
> default, but feel free to change it by doing XYZ) in the root README.
>
> If no one asks about it again, then my concern will have been unnecessary.
> If we get another email like Robert's asking for permission, then we
> revisit this.
>
> WDYT?
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> I don't see why this makes contributions harder: develop however you
>> want and contribute. The only minor thing is, as by default we still
>> target java 5 for a module and you use java 6, the build will fail,
>> you update the pom (a single property), build again and are happy. Not
>> really hard.
>>
>> But I don't want to be a road blocker here: if the majority thinks we
>> should not support Java 5 at all anymore, let's do it.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> 2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
>> > I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes
>> > potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they need
>> to
>> > be.
>> >
>> > I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make
>> changes
>> > to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time
>> > worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not
>> > to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6.
>> >
>> > In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it easier to
>> > provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it easier
>> for
>> > people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the latter.
>> >
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler
>> >> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I
>> >> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle
>> >> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5?
>> >>
>> >> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty
>> >> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well.
>> >> I'm just talking about individual modules.
>> >>
>> >> Carsten
>> >>
>> >> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>:
>> >> > Hi
>> >> >
>> >> > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
>> >> >
>> >> > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6
>> >> and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> > Felix
>> >> >
>> >> > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
>> >> >
>> >> >> -0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum
>> >> across
>> >> >> the board and be done with it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <
>> >> cziegeler@apache.org>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Hi,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we
>> discussed
>> >> >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a
>> vote
>> >> >>> and see where we all are.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
>> >> >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
>> >> >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
>> >> >>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Please cast your votes :)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Regards
>> >> >>> Carsten
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> >> >>> cziegeler@apache.org
>> >> >>>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Carsten Ziegeler
>> >> cziegeler@apache.org
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>.
Well again, I'm looking at Robert sending an email rather than just
creating a patch.
How about this - put this information (modules build against Java 5 by
default, but feel free to change it by doing XYZ) in the root README.
If no one asks about it again, then my concern will have been unnecessary.
If we get another email like Robert's asking for permission, then we
revisit this.
WDYT?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
> I don't see why this makes contributions harder: develop however you
> want and contribute. The only minor thing is, as by default we still
> target java 5 for a module and you use java 6, the build will fail,
> you update the pom (a single property), build again and are happy. Not
> really hard.
>
> But I don't want to be a road blocker here: if the majority thinks we
> should not support Java 5 at all anymore, let's do it.
>
> Carsten
>
> 2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
> > I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes
> > potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they need
> to
> > be.
> >
> > I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make
> changes
> > to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time
> > worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not
> > to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6.
> >
> > In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it easier to
> > provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it easier
> for
> > people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the latter.
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler
> >> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I
> >> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle
> >> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5?
> >>
> >> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty
> >> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well.
> >> I'm just talking about individual modules.
> >>
> >> Carsten
> >>
> >> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>:
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
> >> >
> >> > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6
> >> and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Felix
> >> >
> >> > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
> >> >
> >> >> -0
> >> >>
> >> >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum
> >> across
> >> >> the board and be done with it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <
> >> cziegeler@apache.org>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we
> discussed
> >> >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a
> vote
> >> >>> and see where we all are.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> >> >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> >> >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> >> >>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please cast your votes :)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards
> >> >>> Carsten
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Carsten Ziegeler
> >> >>> cziegeler@apache.org
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carsten Ziegeler
> >> cziegeler@apache.org
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
I don't see why this makes contributions harder: develop however you
want and contribute. The only minor thing is, as by default we still
target java 5 for a module and you use java 6, the build will fail,
you update the pom (a single property), build again and are happy. Not
really hard.
But I don't want to be a road blocker here: if the majority thinks we
should not support Java 5 at all anymore, let's do it.
Carsten
2013/1/31 Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>:
> I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes
> potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they need to
> be.
>
> I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make changes
> to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time
> worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not
> to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6.
>
> In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it easier to
> provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it easier for
> people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the latter.
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler
>> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I
>> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle
>> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5?
>>
>> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty
>> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well.
>> I'm just talking about individual modules.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
>> >
>> > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6
>> and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Felix
>> >
>> > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
>> >
>> >> -0
>> >>
>> >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum
>> across
>> >> the board and be done with it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <
>> cziegeler@apache.org>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
>> >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
>> >>> and see where we all are.
>> >>>
>> >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
>> >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
>> >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>> >>>
>> >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
>> >>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>> >>>
>> >>> Please cast your votes :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> Carsten
>> >>> --
>> >>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> >>> cziegeler@apache.org
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
2013/1/31 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Justin Edelson
> <ju...@justinedelson.com> wrote:
>> ...I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make changes
>> to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time
>> worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not
>> to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6....
>
> What we can do, and IIUC what Carsten suggests is leave some modules
> on Java 5 for now (setting source=1.5 in pom) if they don't currently
> require Java 6.
>
> Then, if someone has a good reason to move a given module to Java 6,
> do that, maybe with a vote first.
Exactly, though I think no vote is needed.
Carsten
>
> -Bertrand
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Justin Edelson
<ju...@justinedelson.com> wrote:
> ...I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make changes
> to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time
> worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not
> to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6....
What we can do, and IIUC what Carsten suggests is leave some modules
on Java 5 for now (setting source=1.5 in pom) if they don't currently
require Java 6.
Then, if someone has a good reason to move a given module to Java 6,
do that, maybe with a vote first.
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>.
I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes
potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they need to
be.
I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make changes
to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time
worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not
to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6.
In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it easier to
provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it easier for
people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the latter.
Justin
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler
> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I
> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle
> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5?
>
> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty
> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well.
> I'm just talking about individual modules.
>
> Carsten
>
> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>:
> > Hi
> >
> > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
> >
> > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6
> and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
> >
> > Regards
> > Felix
> >
> > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
> >
> >> -0
> >>
> >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum
> across
> >> the board and be done with it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <
> cziegeler@apache.org>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
> >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
> >>> and see where we all are.
> >>>
> >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
> >>>
> >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> >>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
> >>>
> >>> Please cast your votes :)
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Carsten
> >>> --
> >>> Carsten Ziegeler
> >>> cziegeler@apache.org
> >>>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Ian Boston <ie...@tfd.co.uk>.
Would saying we dont "support" Java 5 evidenced by not having a CI
build, but in the modules avoiding using Java6 features (eg
@Overrides) be enough ?
That could still be enforced by keeping source and target to 1.5
It would probably be good to keep the jdk5.properties around in
launchepad so you can spin up a container under 5 to test.
Ian
On 1 February 2013 07:07, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler
> and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I
> don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle
> and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5?
>
> Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty
> fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well.
> I'm just talking about individual modules.
>
> Carsten
>
> 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>> In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
>>
>> We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6 and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>> Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
>>
>>> -0
>>>
>>> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum across
>>> the board and be done with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
>>>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
>>>> and see where we all are.
>>>>
>>>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
>>>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
>>>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
>>>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>>>>
>>>> Please cast your votes :)
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Carsten
>>>> --
>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler
and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I
don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle
and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5?
Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty
fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well.
I'm just talking about individual modules.
Carsten
2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>:
> Hi
>
> In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
>
> We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6 and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
>
>> -0
>>
>> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum across
>> the board and be done with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
>>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
>>> and see where we all are.
>>>
>>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
>>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
>>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>>>
>>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
>>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>>>
>>> Please cast your votes :)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Carsten
>>> --
>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi
In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all.
We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6 and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately.
Regards
Felix
Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson:
> -0
>
> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum across
> the board and be done with it.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
>> and see where we all are.
>>
>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>>
>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
>> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>>
>> Please cast your votes :)
>>
>> Regards
>> Carsten
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2013-01-31 19:58, Justin Edelson wrote:
> -0
>
> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum across
> the board and be done with it.
Indeed.
Or even Java7.
Best regards, Julian
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Justin Edelson <ju...@justinedelson.com>.
-0
Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum across
the board and be done with it.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
> and see where we all are.
>
> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>
> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>
> Please cast your votes :)
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
RE: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Mike Müller <mi...@mysign.ch>.
+1
Best regards
mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:cziegeler@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:48 PM
> To: dev@sling.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
>
> Hi,
>
> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
> and see where we all are.
>
> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>
> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>
> Please cast your votes :)
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Jeff Young <je...@adobe.com>.
+1
Jeff.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:cziegeler@apache.org]
> Sent: 31 January 2013 16:48
> To: dev@sling.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
>
> Hi,
>
> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
> and see where we all are.
>
> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>
> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>
> Please cast your votes :)
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
+1
Antonio
On Jan 31, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
> and see where we all are.
>
> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>
> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>
> Please cast your votes :)
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Drop Java 5 Support in General
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
+1
Carsten
2013/1/31 Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>:
> Hi,
>
> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed
> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote
> and see where we all are.
>
> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick
> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each
> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense.
>
> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix
> proposed a way for this some time ago).
>
> Please cast your votes :)
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org