You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@river.apache.org by Simon IJskes - QCG <si...@qcg.nl> on 2012/01/13 20:52:52 UTC
time to move on?
Shall we adapt our compatibility policy?
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 1/18/2012 7:28 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
> On 18-01-12 12:02, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> In any case, I suggest posting the proposal to the user list and getting
>> reactions before voting.
>
> Do you mean to say that we will stay on jdk5 when a user says no?
Personally, I would vote "+1" if only one user objects. We are at a
stage where having the java.util, and especially java.util.concurrent,
features that come with SE 6, would be really useful.
After all, we are not proposing yanking River away from anyone stuck on
SE 5. They would just not get be benefits of future development.
I'm just saying that we should take the vote after listening to the users.
Patricia
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Sim IJskes - QCG <si...@qcg.nl>.
On 18-01-12 16:40, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> No, I'm suggesting being sensitive to the needs of our users and make an
> informed decision when we've made a reasonable effort to understand
> "everyone's" position.
Ok, be my guest. I'm not going to do this.
Gr. Sim
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Tom Hobbs <tv...@googlemail.com>.
No, I'm suggesting being sensitive to the needs of our users and make an
informed decision when we've made a reasonable effort to understand
"everyone's" position.
Sent via mobile device, please forgive typos and spacing errors.
On 18 Jan 2012 15:29, "Simon IJskes - QCG" <si...@qcg.nl> wrote:
> On 18-01-12 12:02, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>> In any case, I suggest posting the proposal to the user list and getting
>> reactions before voting.
>>
>
> Do you mean to say that we will stay on jdk5 when a user says no?
>
> Gr. Sim
>
>
> --
> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
>
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Simon IJskes - QCG <si...@qcg.nl>.
On 18-01-12 12:02, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> In any case, I suggest posting the proposal to the user list and getting
> reactions before voting.
Do you mean to say that we will stay on jdk5 when a user says no?
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
In any case, I suggest posting the proposal to the user list and getting
reactions before voting.
Patricia
On 1/18/2012 1:50 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> Probably a vote.
>
> Sorry for not mentioning this before, I'm snowed under...again.
>
> I remember last time this came up we elected to keep support for Java 5
> because we had a user who was dependent on it because of their use of Real
> Time Java. Does anyone remember that or did I make it up? My memory has
> never been great, given our small size it might be worth reaching out to
> him and seeing if his situation has changed at all.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Sent via mobile device, please forgive typos and spacing errors.
>
> On 18 Jan 2012 09:46, "Simon IJskes - QCG"<si...@qcg.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 15-01-12 12:52, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>
>>> On 15-01-12 09:55, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shall we adapt our compatibility policy?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.oracle.com/**technetwork/java/eol-135779.**html<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gr. Sim
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>
>>> Might as well, we don't have the resources at present to support Java 5
>>>>
>>>
>>> Also some of my concurrency work depends on Java 6 library features.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Shall we formulate our supported targets as:
>>>
>>> * java se 6 (Ubuntu,Windows,Solaris,OsX)
>>> * openjdk 7 (idem)
>>> * java se 7 (idem)
>>>
>>> Gr. Sim
>>>
>>>
>> Do we need a vote on this, or shall i implement.
>>
>> Gr. Sim
>>
>> --
>> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
>> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
>>
>
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Tom Hobbs <tv...@googlemail.com>.
Probably a vote.
Sorry for not mentioning this before, I'm snowed under...again.
I remember last time this came up we elected to keep support for Java 5
because we had a user who was dependent on it because of their use of Real
Time Java. Does anyone remember that or did I make it up? My memory has
never been great, given our small size it might be worth reaching out to
him and seeing if his situation has changed at all.
Just my opinion.
Sent via mobile device, please forgive typos and spacing errors.
On 18 Jan 2012 09:46, "Simon IJskes - QCG" <si...@qcg.nl> wrote:
> On 15-01-12 12:52, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>
>> On 15-01-12 09:55, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>>
>>> Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shall we adapt our compatibility policy?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.oracle.com/**technetwork/java/eol-135779.**html<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html>
>>>>
>>>> Gr. Sim
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> Might as well, we don't have the resources at present to support Java 5
>>>
>>
>> Also some of my concurrency work depends on Java 6 library features.
>>>
>>
>> Shall we formulate our supported targets as:
>>
>> * java se 6 (Ubuntu,Windows,Solaris,OsX)
>> * openjdk 7 (idem)
>> * java se 7 (idem)
>>
>> Gr. Sim
>>
>>
> Do we need a vote on this, or shall i implement.
>
> Gr. Sim
>
> --
> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
>
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Simon IJskes - QCG <si...@qcg.nl>.
On 15-01-12 12:52, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
> On 15-01-12 09:55, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>> Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>> Shall we adapt our compatibility policy?
>>>
>>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
>>>
>>> Gr. Sim
>>>
>> +1
>
>> Might as well, we don't have the resources at present to support Java 5
>
>> Also some of my concurrency work depends on Java 6 library features.
>
> Shall we formulate our supported targets as:
>
> * java se 6 (Ubuntu,Windows,Solaris,OsX)
> * openjdk 7 (idem)
> * java se 7 (idem)
>
> Gr. Sim
>
Do we need a vote on this, or shall i implement.
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Simon IJskes - QCG <si...@qcg.nl>.
On 15-01-12 09:55, Peter Firmstone wrote:
> Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>> Shall we adapt our compatibility policy?
>>
>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
>>
>> Gr. Sim
>>
> +1
> Might as well, we don't have the resources at present to support Java 5
> Also some of my concurrency work depends on Java 6 library features.
Shall we formulate our supported targets as:
* java se 6 (Ubuntu,Windows,Solaris,OsX)
* openjdk 7 (idem)
* java se 7 (idem)
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
Re: time to move on?
Posted by Peter Firmstone <ji...@zeus.net.au>.
Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
> Shall we adapt our compatibility policy?
>
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
>
> Gr. Sim
>
+1
Might as well, we don't have the resources at present to support Java 5
properly and we can't compile the build on it due to dependencies and
aren't testing on it. Since the bytecode version hasn't changed and no
proxy code has changed, people will be able to have more than one
version of River and Java in a djinn, so they can migrate a djinn
without shutting it down.
Also some of my concurrency work depends on Java 6 library features.
I'll look into what needs to be done to migrate the jtreg tests to java
6. I think it was just the name service provider and finding a
replacement for keytool.
Cheers,
Peter.