You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Julien Vermillard <jv...@gmail.com> on 2013/05/20 08:36:51 UTC
MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Hi !
Would it cause problems for having MINA 3 jdk7 only ?
The rational is quite simple : multicast udp support is only in jdk7.
I know a lot of people are still running jdk6 or event 5 :) that's why I ask.
Julien
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 7/16/13 2:34 AM, sebb a écrit :
> On 29 June 2013 21:41, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 6/29/13 7:35 PM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
>>> I think having the codec module java 6 compatible would help to use it
>>> with MINA2 or other framework.
>>> WDYT ?
>> I don't mind if it's JAVA 6 compatble, as soon as we still can benefit
>> from Java 7 features in the core.
> It seems like the main driver for Java 7 is multicast UDP.
Not to mention that Java 6 is EOL since last year...
>
> Can that be isolated in a few classes such that the rest of the code
> works on Java 6?
>
> So Java 7 would be required for building, but Java 6+ for running.
> But it may be too complicated to do.
I really think we should ditch Java 6. It's dead, buried. Java 7 for the
masses !
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 June 2013 21:41, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 6/29/13 7:35 PM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
>> I think having the codec module java 6 compatible would help to use it
>> with MINA2 or other framework.
>> WDYT ?
> I don't mind if it's JAVA 6 compatble, as soon as we still can benefit
> from Java 7 features in the core.
It seems like the main driver for Java 7 is multicast UDP.
Can that be isolated in a few classes such that the rest of the code
works on Java 6?
So Java 7 would be required for building, but Java 6+ for running.
But it may be too complicated to do.
> Also be sure to add a warning in the header to tell the coders that this
> portion of code must remain Java 6 compatible.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 6/29/13 7:35 PM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
> I think having the codec module java 6 compatible would help to use it
> with MINA2 or other framework.
> WDYT ?
I don't mind if it's JAVA 6 compatble, as soon as we still can benefit
from Java 7 features in the core.
Also be sure to add a warning in the header to tell the coders that this
portion of code must remain Java 6 compatible.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Julien Vermillard <jv...@gmail.com>.
I think having the codec module java 6 compatible would help to use it
with MINA2 or other framework.
WDYT ?
--
Julien Vermillard :::: http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Steve Ulrich
<st...@proemion.com> wrote:
> 2 Reasons for 7.0:
> 1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
> 2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the (testing, developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
>
> So +1 for Java 7
>
>> Raphaël Barazzutti [mailto:raphael.barazzutti@gmail.com] wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, developers who will do the jump to MINA 3.0, might also want to
>> benefit of the cutting-edge features of JDK7.
>>
>> +1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> PROEMION GmbH
>
> Steve Ulrich
>
> IT Development (IT/DEV)
>
> Donaustrasse 14
> D-36043 Fulda, Germany
> Phone +49 (0) 661 9490-601
> Fax +49 (0) 661 9490-333
>
> http://www.proemion.com
>
> Geschäftsführer: Dipl. Ing. Robert Michaelides
> Amtsgericht-Registergericht-Fulda: 5 HRB 1867
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> E-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you have received this
> E-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the sender immediately by E-mail and then delete this E-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee, you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this E-mail. Addressees should scan this E-mail and any attachments for viruses. No representation or warranty is made as to the absence of viruses in this E-mail or any of its attachments.
>
> AKTUELLES:
> http://www.proemion.de
>
> NEWS:
> http://www.proemion.com
>
>
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 7/16/13 10:34 AM, Steve Ulrich a écrit :
>> sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com] wrote:
>>
>> On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich <st...@proemion.com> wrote:
>>> 2 Reasons for 7.0:
>>> 1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
>>> 2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the
>> (testing, developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
>>
>> I don't think that's generally true.
>> If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
>> is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
>> Especially if the system is installed on multiple nodes which may have
>> different hardware and configs.
> Java 6's public EOL is due,
Java 6 EOL : Feb 2013
(http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html)
It's not due, it's already dead ;-)
> but commercial support is still there until 2016.
Dec 2016. Most of our users will not pay for a commercial support, I'm
afraid :-)
> From a commercial side it doesn't make much sense to put effort (and money) in a MINA 3 upgrade for only 2 years (MINA 3 release + development time and you're are likely in the middle of 2014).
> Besides a MINA 3 designed for Java 7 could bring much more efficiency and some new features.
+1
> What is the downside of sticking to an existing and stable MINA 2 until you are ready to upgrade to Java 7? You'll have to test your application with Java 7 nonetheless - a new MINA won't hurt much on testing efforts.
> Downside for devs: MINA 2 needs to be supported a little longer.
We will maintain MINA 2 for some more time. There are not so much effort
to be put on this version anyway. (if we except the documentation...)
>
> Given a longer development time I would even suggest using Java 8. But it will be most likely too cutting-edge for most needs.
I'm not really sur Java 8 brings a lot of interesting features for MINA
(Which is not the case for Java 7)
>
> btw: is there a current roadmap or target for MINA 3?
Julien is trying hard to cut a first milstone, and is struggling with
N&L files... I feel for him :-)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
RE: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Steve Ulrich <st...@proemion.com>.
> sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich <st...@proemion.com> wrote:
> > 2 Reasons for 7.0:
> > 1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
> > 2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the
> (testing, developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
>
> I don't think that's generally true.
> If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
> is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
> Especially if the system is installed on multiple nodes which may have
> different hardware and configs.
Java 6's public EOL is due, but commercial support is still there until 2016.
From a commercial side it doesn't make much sense to put effort (and money) in a MINA 3 upgrade for only 2 years (MINA 3 release + development time and you're are likely in the middle of 2014).
Besides a MINA 3 designed for Java 7 could bring much more efficiency and some new features.
What is the downside of sticking to an existing and stable MINA 2 until you are ready to upgrade to Java 7? You'll have to test your application with Java 7 nonetheless - a new MINA won't hurt much on testing efforts.
Downside for devs: MINA 2 needs to be supported a little longer.
Given a longer development time I would even suggest using Java 8. But it will be most likely too cutting-edge for most needs.
btw: is there a current roadmap or target for MINA 3?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Ulrich
IT Development (IT/DEV)
Proemion GmbH
Donaustr. 14 36043 Fulda, Germany
Phone +49 (0) 661 9490-601
Fax +49 (0) 661 9490-333
www.proemion.com
Management: Dipl. Ing. Robert Michaelides
Register court: Amtsgericht Fulda 5 HRB 1332
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you have received this
E-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the sender
immediately by E-mail and then delete this E-mail from your system. If you
are not a named addressee, you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy or
print this E-mail. Addressees should scan this E-mail and any attachments
for viruses. No representation or warranty is made as to the absence of
viruses in this email or any of its attachments.
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 7/16/13 6:57 PM, sebb a écrit :
>
>> In other words, "Time is of the essence"
> Well yes, but that has little to do with whether to move to Java 6 or Java 7.
In our case, it does. We aren't enough and we have not a lot of work
time to dedicate to support for older versions of java for all the MINA
version, IMO.
This is a balance between what kind of comfort we want to give to our
users, and how much time we have to produce the packages.
OTOH, if we have a couple of dedicated users who want to have a Java 6
supported MINA 3, they will be *very* welcome to become active
committers on the project !!!
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 16 July 2013 14:07, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 7/16/13 12:10 PM, sebb a écrit :
>>>> I don't think that's generally true.
>>>> >> If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
>>>> >> is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
>>>> >> Especially if the system is installed on multiple nodes which may have
>>>> >> different hardware and configs.
>>> >
>>> > Those objections are very valuable for MINA 2. MINA 3 will take at least
>>> > one more year to get out in a RC state, so I would rather not spend a
>>> > minute of my very busy agenda to take care of Java 6 compatibility for
>>> > MINA 3.
>>> > I don't want to see MINA to face the same problem that
>>> > commons-collection is facing : 9 years after the addition of generics in
>>> > Java, we still don't have a library supporting them...
>> That's an entirely separate issue; part of the problem is it's
>> extremely difficult to do generics correctly in libraries such as
>> collections.
> In fact, it's not at all a separate issue : just because it's really
> difficult to do it correctly does not mean you don't have to do it. The
> big difference is the time you have to complete the work. I can
> understand that it took 9 years for some team working 1h a week on a
> project to move to generic, but it's not something we want to get stuck
> into : by getting rid of tme constraints (ie, removing the need to keep
> a compatibility with an already EOL version of Java), we spare this
> previous time delivering some package in a (soemhow) better timing, not
> leaving our users with the alternative of using a semi-OSS component
> like guava
I'll just point out that other Commons components have had plenty of
releases using generics.
I think it was also partly that Java 5 has lots of new collection
functionality so there was perhaps less of a need for Commons
Collections.
There was no-one really driving it forward.
> In other words, "Time is of the essence"
Well yes, but that has little to do with whether to move to Java 6 or Java 7.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 7/16/13 12:10 PM, sebb a écrit :
>>> I don't think that's generally true.
>>> >> If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
>>> >> is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
>>> >> Especially if the system is installed on multiple nodes which may have
>>> >> different hardware and configs.
>> >
>> > Those objections are very valuable for MINA 2. MINA 3 will take at least
>> > one more year to get out in a RC state, so I would rather not spend a
>> > minute of my very busy agenda to take care of Java 6 compatibility for
>> > MINA 3.
>> > I don't want to see MINA to face the same problem that
>> > commons-collection is facing : 9 years after the addition of generics in
>> > Java, we still don't have a library supporting them...
> That's an entirely separate issue; part of the problem is it's
> extremely difficult to do generics correctly in libraries such as
> collections.
In fact, it's not at all a separate issue : just because it's really
difficult to do it correctly does not mean you don't have to do it. The
big difference is the time you have to complete the work. I can
understand that it took 9 years for some team working 1h a week on a
project to move to generic, but it's not something we want to get stuck
into : by getting rid of tme constraints (ie, removing the need to keep
a compatibility with an already EOL version of Java), we spare this
previous time delivering some package in a (soemhow) better timing, not
leaving our users with the alternative of using a semi-OSS component
like guava.
In other words, "Time is of the essence"
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 16 July 2013 09:12, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 7/16/13 2:41 AM, sebb a écrit :
>> On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich <st...@proemion.com> wrote:
>>> 2 Reasons for 7.0:
>>> 1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
>>> 2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the (testing, developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
>> I don't think that's generally true.
>> If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
>> is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
>> Especially if the system is installed on multiple nodes which may have
>> different hardware and configs.
>
> Those objections are very valuable for MINA 2. MINA 3 will take at least
> one more year to get out in a RC state, so I would rather not spend a
> minute of my very busy agenda to take care of Java 6 compatibility for
> MINA 3.
> I don't want to see MINA to face the same problem that
> commons-collection is facing : 9 years after the addition of generics in
> Java, we still don't have a library supporting them...
That's an entirely separate issue; part of the problem is it's
extremely difficult to do generics correctly in libraries such as
collections.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 7/16/13 2:41 AM, sebb a écrit :
> On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich <st...@proemion.com> wrote:
>> 2 Reasons for 7.0:
>> 1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
>> 2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the (testing, developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
> I don't think that's generally true.
> If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
> is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
> Especially if the system is installed on multiple nodes which may have
> different hardware and configs.
Those objections are very valuable for MINA 2. MINA 3 will take at least
one more year to get out in a RC state, so I would rather not spend a
minute of my very busy agenda to take care of Java 6 compatibility for
MINA 3.
I don't want to see MINA to face the same problem that
commons-collection is facing : 9 years after the addition of generics in
Java, we still don't have a library supporting them...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich <st...@proemion.com> wrote:
> 2 Reasons for 7.0:
> 1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
> 2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the (testing, developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
I don't think that's generally true.
If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
Especially if the system is installed on multiple nodes which may have
different hardware and configs.
> So +1 for Java 7
>
>> Raphaël Barazzutti [mailto:raphael.barazzutti@gmail.com] wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, developers who will do the jump to MINA 3.0, might also want to
>> benefit of the cutting-edge features of JDK7.
>>
>> +1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> PROEMION GmbH
>
> Steve Ulrich
>
> IT Development (IT/DEV)
>
> Donaustrasse 14
> D-36043 Fulda, Germany
> Phone +49 (0) 661 9490-601
> Fax +49 (0) 661 9490-333
>
> http://www.proemion.com
>
> Geschäftsführer: Dipl. Ing. Robert Michaelides
> Amtsgericht-Registergericht-Fulda: 5 HRB 1867
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> E-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you have received this
> E-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the sender immediately by E-mail and then delete this E-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee, you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this E-mail. Addressees should scan this E-mail and any attachments for viruses. No representation or warranty is made as to the absence of viruses in this E-mail or any of its attachments.
>
> AKTUELLES:
> http://www.proemion.de
>
> NEWS:
> http://www.proemion.com
>
>
RE: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Steve Ulrich <st...@proemion.com>.
2 Reasons for 7.0:
1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the (testing, developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
So +1 for Java 7
> Raphaël Barazzutti [mailto:raphael.barazzutti@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> IMHO, developers who will do the jump to MINA 3.0, might also want to
> benefit of the cutting-edge features of JDK7.
>
> +1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROEMION GmbH
Steve Ulrich
IT Development (IT/DEV)
Donaustrasse 14
D-36043 Fulda, Germany
Phone +49 (0) 661 9490-601
Fax +49 (0) 661 9490-333
http://www.proemion.com
Geschäftsführer: Dipl. Ing. Robert Michaelides
Amtsgericht-Registergericht-Fulda: 5 HRB 1867
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you have received this
E-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the sender immediately by E-mail and then delete this E-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee, you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this E-mail. Addressees should scan this E-mail and any attachments for viruses. No representation or warranty is made as to the absence of viruses in this E-mail or any of its attachments.
AKTUELLES:
http://www.proemion.de
NEWS:
http://www.proemion.com
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Arnaud bourree <ar...@gmail.com>.
+1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
2013/5/20 Raphaël Barazzutti <ra...@gmail.com>
> IMHO, developers who will do the jump to MINA 3.0, might also want to
> benefit of the cutting-edge features of JDK7.
>
> +1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Julien Vermillard <jvermillard@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > The idea of being 7 only is to avoid that ;)
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Le 5/20/13 8:36 AM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
> > >> Hi !
> > >>
> > >> Would it cause problems for having MINA 3 jdk7 only ?
> > >> The rational is quite simple : multicast udp support is only in jdk7.
> > >>
> > >> I know a lot of people are still running jdk6 or event 5 :) that's why
> > I ask.
> > > Java 6 is EOL since last year. However, many people are still using it.
> > > I wonder if we should create 2 versions of MINA, one which support Java
> > > 6 and the other one that supports Java 7 ?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Cordialement,
> > > Emmanuel Lécharny
> > > www.iktek.com
> > >
> >
>
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Raphaël Barazzutti <ra...@gmail.com>.
IMHO, developers who will do the jump to MINA 3.0, might also want to
benefit of the cutting-edge features of JDK7.
+1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Julien Vermillard <jv...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The idea of being 7 only is to avoid that ;)
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Le 5/20/13 8:36 AM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
> >> Hi !
> >>
> >> Would it cause problems for having MINA 3 jdk7 only ?
> >> The rational is quite simple : multicast udp support is only in jdk7.
> >>
> >> I know a lot of people are still running jdk6 or event 5 :) that's why
> I ask.
> > Java 6 is EOL since last year. However, many people are still using it.
> > I wonder if we should create 2 versions of MINA, one which support Java
> > 6 and the other one that supports Java 7 ?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Cordialement,
> > Emmanuel Lécharny
> > www.iktek.com
> >
>
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Julien Vermillard <jv...@gmail.com>.
The idea of being 7 only is to avoid that ;)
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 5/20/13 8:36 AM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
>> Hi !
>>
>> Would it cause problems for having MINA 3 jdk7 only ?
>> The rational is quite simple : multicast udp support is only in jdk7.
>>
>> I know a lot of people are still running jdk6 or event 5 :) that's why I ask.
> Java 6 is EOL since last year. However, many people are still using it.
> I wonder if we should create 2 versions of MINA, one which support Java
> 6 and the other one that supports Java 7 ?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
Re: MINA 3.0 JDK7+ only ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 5/20/13 8:36 AM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
> Hi !
>
> Would it cause problems for having MINA 3 jdk7 only ?
> The rational is quite simple : multicast udp support is only in jdk7.
>
> I know a lot of people are still running jdk6 or event 5 :) that's why I ask.
Java 6 is EOL since last year. However, many people are still using it.
I wonder if we should create 2 versions of MINA, one which support Java
6 and the other one that supports Java 7 ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com