You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@commons.apache.org by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> on 2009/08/19 16:18:18 UTC
[VFS] Minimum Java version
Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
not been released and the developers are considering making the
minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the
community however before this change is made. So please respond with
your thoughts on this.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by michele bianchi <mi...@gmail.com>.
+1 for java 5!
m
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has not
> been released and the developers are considering making the minimum
> version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community
> however before this change is made. So please respond with your
> thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:18 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
> not been released and the developers are considering making the
> minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from
> the community however before this change is made. So please respond
> with your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
To answer my own question, Commons Configuration 1.7-SNAPSHOT is using
Commons VFS 2.0-SNAPSHOT as an optional dependency. Configuration has
a minimum JDK of 1.3. Although it is an optional runtime dependency,
some of the public classes are needed at compile time. This has not
been a problem so far and would be OK provided this continued to work
after the change. I don't believe it would be a problem to add the
requirement for JDK 5 to the use of this feature in Commons
Configuration.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ryan McKinley <ry...@gmail.com>.
+1 for java 5!
On Aug 19, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
> not been released and the developers are considering making the
> minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from
> the community however before this change is made. So please respond
> with your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Gary
Gregory<GG...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
>> To: Commons Users List
>> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely have
>> to
>> > be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming
>> right
>> > now.
>>
>> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes that would have
>> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
>> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
>> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then creating a
>> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the decision
>> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
>
> That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and v2 co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be renamed. So if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and rename now.
I don't really get why you say it complicates matters as being
backwards compatible means that you don't need v1 & v2 to co-exist.
Niall
> Gary
>
>>
>> Niall
>>
>> > The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
>> > correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since
>> some
>> > of the code actually required that version to run.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> > On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:If
>> >
>> >> Are they going to change the package name?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph
>> Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
>> not
>> >>> been
>> >>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version
>> >>> JDK
>> >>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>> >>> before
>> >>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ralph
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:53 AM
> To: Commons Users List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
> >> To: Commons Users List
> >> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>> The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would
> >>> definitely have
> >> to
> >>> be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming
> >> right
> >>> now.
> >>
> >> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes that would have
> >> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
> >> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
> >> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then
> >> creating a
> >> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the
> >> decision
> >> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
> >
> > That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and
> > v2 co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be
> > renamed. So if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and
> > rename now.
> >
>
> I think the point Niall is making is valid. Currently the minimum JDK
> version of 2.0 is 1.4. I would think to start with all we would change
> would be the version variable in the pom and then take advantage of it
> a few places internally. We haven't planned on doing anything that is
> incompatible at this point.
Sure, I am just thinking that when I have worked on projects that have opened the door to Java 5/6, it's opened the floodgates to using new APIs, Generics, etc. Compatibility for existing v1.0 call sites should still be a goal of course.
Gary
>
> Ralph
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
>> To: Commons Users List
>> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>> The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would
>>> definitely have
>> to
>>> be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming
>> right
>>> now.
>>
>> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes that would have
>> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
>> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
>> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then
>> creating a
>> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the
>> decision
>> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
>
> That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and
> v2 co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be
> renamed. So if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and
> rename now.
>
I think the point Niall is making is valid. Currently the minimum JDK
version of 2.0 is 1.4. I would think to start with all we would change
would be the version variable in the pom and then take advantage of it
a few places internally. We haven't planned on doing anything that is
incompatible at this point.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
> To: Commons Users List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> > The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely have
> to
> > be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming
> right
> > now.
>
> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes that would have
> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then creating a
> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the decision
> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and v2 co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be renamed. So if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and rename now.
Gary
>
> Niall
>
> > The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
> > correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since
> some
> > of the code actually required that version to run.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:If
> >
> >> Are they going to change the package name?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph
> Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
> not
> >>> been
> >>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version
> >>> JDK
> >>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
> >>> before
> >>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely have to
> be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming right
> now.
With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes that would have
broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then creating a
list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the decision
based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
Niall
> The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
> correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since some
> of the code actually required that version to run.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:If
>
>> Are they going to change the package name?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has not
>>> been
>>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version
>>> JDK
>>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>>> before
>>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Mark Fortner <ph...@gmail.com>.
I wonder if the BSD-licensed Retroweaver (http://retroweaver.sf.net) could
be used to provide 1.4 binary compatibility for those who need it?
Regards,
Mark Fortner
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Yeah, we probably need to change the package name to o.a.c.vfs2 and
the artifactId to commons-vfs2. Or, go back the other way, as you
suggest (provided it's backward compatible).
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> The maven group id for 2.0 is currently org.apache.commons. It was
> commons-vfs for VFS 1.0, so it would already be possible to have both jars
> simultaneously. So if the package names are not changed then the pom needs
> to be changed to use commons-vfs as the groupId before 2.0 is formally
> released.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:38 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
>> What about the maven2 group/artifact id?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely have
>>> to
>>> be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming right
>>> now.
>>>
>>> The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
>>> correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since
>>> some
>>> of the code actually required that version to run.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are they going to change the package name?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph
>>>> Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has not
>>>>> been
>>>>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version
>>>>> JDK
>>>>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>>>>> before
>>>>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
The maven group id for 2.0 is currently org.apache.commons. It was
commons-vfs for VFS 1.0, so it would already be possible to have both
jars simultaneously. So if the package names are not changed then the
pom needs to be changed to use commons-vfs as the groupId before 2.0
is formally released.
Ralph
On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:38 AM, James Carman wrote:
> What about the maven2 group/artifact id?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ralph Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > wrote:
>> The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely
>> have to
>> be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming
>> right
>> now.
>>
>> The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that
>> was
>> correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4
>> since some
>> of the code actually required that version to run.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> Are they going to change the package name?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0
>>>> has not
>>>> been
>>>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum
>>>> version
>>>> JDK
>>>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>>>> before
>>>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
What about the maven2 group/artifact id?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely have to
> be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming right
> now.
>
> The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
> correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since some
> of the code actually required that version to run.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
>> Are they going to change the package name?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has not
>>> been
>>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version
>>> JDK
>>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>>> before
>>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de>.
Hi Ralph,
+1 on Java 5.
Ralph Goers wrote at Mittwoch, 19. August 2009 16:34:
> The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely
> have to be considered whether we would want to take on the package
> renaming right now.
>
> The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
> correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since
> some of the code actually required that version to run.
as Niall already pointed out, it depends whether 2.0 is binary compatible or
not. Generics do not necessarily break compatibility.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely
have to be considered whether we would want to take on the package
renaming right now.
The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since
some of the code actually required that version to run.
Ralph
On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Are they going to change the package name?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > wrote:
>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
>> not been
>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum
>> version JDK
>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>> before
>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
+1 on Java 5.
> Are they going to change the package name?
Let's discuss this once we cross this bridge.
Ciao,
Mario
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely
have to be considered whether we would want to take on the package
renaming right now.
The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since
some of the code actually required that version to run.
Ralph
On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Are they going to change the package name?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > wrote:
>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
>> not been
>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum
>> version JDK
>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>> before
>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
+1 on Java 5.
> Are they going to change the package name?
Let's discuss this once we cross this bridge.
Ciao,
Mario
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Are they going to change the package name?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has not been
> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version JDK
> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however before
> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:18 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
> not been released and the developers are considering making the
> minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from
> the community however before this change is made. So please respond
> with your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
To answer my own question, Commons Configuration 1.7-SNAPSHOT is using
Commons VFS 2.0-SNAPSHOT as an optional dependency. Configuration has
a minimum JDK of 1.3. Although it is an optional runtime dependency,
some of the public classes are needed at compile time. This has not
been a problem so far and would be OK provided this continued to work
after the change. I don't believe it would be a problem to add the
requirement for JDK 5 to the use of this feature in Commons
Configuration.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
+1 for Java 5.
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:18 AM
> To: Commons Developers List; Commons Users List
> Subject: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
> not been released and the developers are considering making the
> minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the
> community however before this change is made. So please respond with
> your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
+1 for Java 5.
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:18 AM
> To: Commons Developers List; Commons Users List
> Subject: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
> not been released and the developers are considering making the
> minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the
> community however before this change is made. So please respond with
> your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Are they going to change the package name?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has not been
> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version JDK
> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however before
> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Aug 22, 2009, at 2:12 AM, sebb wrote:
> 1.5 offers a lot of enhancements over 1.4.
>
> Does 1.6 offer anything essential to VFS at run-time?
> If not, then stick with 1.5 to avoid unnecessarily excluding users.
>
I agree with that.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
1.5 offers a lot of enhancements over 1.4.
Does 1.6 offer anything essential to VFS at run-time?
If not, then stick with 1.5 to avoid unnecessarily excluding users.
On 22/08/2009, Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 1:03 AM
> > To: Commons Users List
> > Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
> >
>
> > +1 for 1.6
>
> Since we are +1'ing, +1 for 1.6 (or a least 1.5)
>
> G
>
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:57 AM, rzo <rz...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for 1.5
> > >
> > > - Ron
> > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/yajsw/
> > >
> > > david@davidkarlsen.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Ralph Goers wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
> > not
> > >>> been released and the developers are considering making the minimum
> > version
> > >>> JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community
> > however
> > >>> before this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on
> > this.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In favour of 1.5 as minimum.
> > >> Older JDKs are EOL - and java5 came with a lot of enhancements.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> David J. M. Karlsen - +47 90 68 22 43
> > >> http://www.davidkarlsen.com
> > >> http://mp3.davidkarlsen.com
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ted Dunning, CTO
> > DeepDyve
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 1:03 AM
> To: Commons Users List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
> +1 for 1.6
Since we are +1'ing, +1 for 1.6 (or a least 1.5)
G
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:57 AM, rzo <rz...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > +1 for 1.5
> >
> > - Ron
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/yajsw/
> >
> > david@davidkarlsen.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Ralph Goers wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
> not
> >>> been released and the developers are considering making the minimum
> version
> >>> JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community
> however
> >>> before this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on
> this.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> In favour of 1.5 as minimum.
> >> Older JDKs are EOL - and java5 came with a lot of enhancements.
> >>
> >> --
> >> David J. M. Karlsen - +47 90 68 22 43
> >> http://www.davidkarlsen.com
> >> http://mp3.davidkarlsen.com
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 1.6
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:57 AM, rzo <rz...@gmx.de> wrote:
> +1 for 1.5
>
> - Ron
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/yajsw/
>
> david@davidkarlsen.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has not
>>> been released and the developers are considering making the minimum version
>>> JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>>> before this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In favour of 1.5 as minimum.
>> Older JDKs are EOL - and java5 came with a lot of enhancements.
>>
>> --
>> David J. M. Karlsen - +47 90 68 22 43
>> http://www.davidkarlsen.com
>> http://mp3.davidkarlsen.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by rzo <rz...@gmx.de>.
+1 for 1.5
- Ron
http://sourceforge.net/projects/yajsw/
david@davidkarlsen.com wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has
>> not been released and the developers are considering making the
>> minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the
>> community however before this change is made. So please respond with
>> your thoughts on this.
>
>
> In favour of 1.5 as minimum.
> Older JDKs are EOL - and java5 came with a lot of enhancements.
>
> --
> David J. M. Karlsen - +47 90 68 22 43
> http://www.davidkarlsen.com
> http://mp3.davidkarlsen.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
AW: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
> Well, if you're going to make a jump, why go to something that's EOSL very soon?
For me, JDK 1.6 would be fine too.
But, I'd say this is just a minor issue as the main things one will notice (generics, enhanced for syntax) are there with JDK 1.5.
Are there any API changes critical for VFS to use? I don't think so.
The next big jump VFS might see will be JDK 1.7 as then they come with a pluggable file provider [1] thingy too. We will see, how VFS fits there.
In fact, I think VFS3 will provide just filesystem providers for JDK 1.7 - don't know if they can deal with layered filesystems though.
Ciao,
Mario
[1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/nio/javadoc/java/nio/file/FileSystem.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org