You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> on 2009/11/09 07:24:22 UTC
[vfs] JDK 1.5
Guys,
looking at Ralph's comment in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-254
I am questionning myself, if there's any reason why vfs 2.0 should still
have JDK 1.4 as requirement and not JDK 1.5. VFS 2.0 will be a major
release and JDK 1.7 is years away to be used for our conservative
customers. Although we have still some maintenance support for JDK
1.4-based apps, they're phasing out and we will definitely not update
dependencies with major releases. Therefore I'd rather have a VFS with more
modern API (generics) in 2.0 than an "old-fashioned" version 2.0 based on
JDK 1.4 especially if the major release means that API changes too much for
a drop in replacement of 1.1. Thoughts ?
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [vfs] JDK 1.5
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> looking at Ralph's comment in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-254
> I am questionning myself, if there's any reason why vfs 2.0 should
> still
> have JDK 1.4 as requirement and not JDK 1.5.
If it is just me, I'd be happy to drop 1.4 dependency - Past votes were declined. Probably the time is ripe now.
If it is worth to generify the API is another story - as Ralph pointed out, the next logical step for VFS is to support the upcomming JDK 1.7 file.spi stuff. That is also my view, and hopefully falls into times where I have more time left to spend for VFS again.
Having a complete new api I see no point putting efforts into generifying the current api.
If we discover that the JDK 1.7 api is too limiting thigs might change, though.
On the other hand, as the VFS api is today, generifying it might be a "no-brainer" ;-)
We event might manage to generify without changed the VFS api - keeping it backward compatible.
Ciao,
Mario
RE: [vfs] JDK 1.5
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 23:34
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [vfs] JDK 1.5
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > looking at Ralph's comment in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-254
> > I am questionning myself, if there's any reason why vfs 2.0 should
> > still
> > have JDK 1.4 as requirement and not JDK 1.5. VFS 2.0 will be a major
> > release and JDK 1.7 is years away to be used for our conservative
> > customers. Although we have still some maintenance support for JDK
> > 1.4-based apps, they're phasing out and we will definitely not update
> > dependencies with major releases. Therefore I'd rather have a VFS
> > with more
> > modern API (generics) in 2.0 than an "old-fashioned" version 2.0
> > based on
> > JDK 1.4 especially if the major release means that API changes too
> > much for
> > a drop in replacement of 1.1. Thoughts ?
> >
>
>
> Actually, there was a poll on the dev list in august and no one
> objected to moving to JDK 5. I have no problem with changing the
> compile and target versions to Java 5 but I would really like to see
> 2.0 released asap. I'm already using it in production and from
> comments I've seen I'm pretty sure others are as well. At this point I
> think it would be good to keep the changes on 2.0 to a minimum
If the upgrade to Java 5 does not introduce new issues, I say go for it.
>
> I made changes on the VFS281 branch that require Java 5 as the minimum
> version internally but doesn't break compatibility in any other way. I
> haven't merged that to trunk because I asked for feedback and got
> none. At this point I'm prepared to go out with 2.0 without this and
> then consider adding it to whatever the next release is going to be.
I like the "release early, release often" XP mantra. If we can get a 2.1 with Java 5 support right behind 2.0, that would be OK with me too. The idea would be to release 2.0 and release 2.1 ASAP just to move development onto a more modern platform.
Gary
>
> To me, the primary concern is getting 2.0 released and there are still
> a ton of Jira issues, many with patches, that I haven't had a chance
> to look at. I took a stab at applying some easy ones over the last few
> days, but there are some that deal with issues findbugs found that
> probably should be addressed.
>
> Ralph
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] JDK 1.5
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Nov 8, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Guys,
>
> looking at Ralph's comment in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-254
> I am questionning myself, if there's any reason why vfs 2.0 should
> still
> have JDK 1.4 as requirement and not JDK 1.5. VFS 2.0 will be a major
> release and JDK 1.7 is years away to be used for our conservative
> customers. Although we have still some maintenance support for JDK
> 1.4-based apps, they're phasing out and we will definitely not update
> dependencies with major releases. Therefore I'd rather have a VFS
> with more
> modern API (generics) in 2.0 than an "old-fashioned" version 2.0
> based on
> JDK 1.4 especially if the major release means that API changes too
> much for
> a drop in replacement of 1.1. Thoughts ?
>
Actually, there was a poll on the dev list in august and no one
objected to moving to JDK 5. I have no problem with changing the
compile and target versions to Java 5 but I would really like to see
2.0 released asap. I'm already using it in production and from
comments I've seen I'm pretty sure others are as well. At this point I
think it would be good to keep the changes on 2.0 to a minimum
I made changes on the VFS281 branch that require Java 5 as the minimum
version internally but doesn't break compatibility in any other way. I
haven't merged that to trunk because I asked for feedback and got
none. At this point I'm prepared to go out with 2.0 without this and
then consider adding it to whatever the next release is going to be.
To me, the primary concern is getting 2.0 released and there are still
a ton of Jira issues, many with patches, that I haven't had a chance
to look at. I took a stab at applying some easy ones over the last few
days, but there are some that deal with issues findbugs found that
probably should be addressed.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [vfs] JDK 1.5
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Jörg Schaible
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 22:24
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: [vfs] JDK 1.5
>
> Guys,
>
> looking at Ralph's comment in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-254
> I am questionning myself, if there's any reason why vfs 2.0 should
> still
> have JDK 1.4 as requirement and not JDK 1.5. VFS 2.0 will be a major
> release and JDK 1.7 is years away to be used for our conservative
> customers. Although we have still some maintenance support for JDK
> 1.4-based apps, they're phasing out and we will definitely not update
> dependencies with major releases. Therefore I'd rather have a VFS with
> more
> modern API (generics) in 2.0 than an "old-fashioned" version 2.0 based
> on
> JDK 1.4 especially if the major release means that API changes too much
> for
> a drop in replacement of 1.1. Thoughts ?
Yes, good idea, drop Java 1.4 in favor of at least 1.5.
Gary
>
> - Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org