You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> on 2012/02/10 14:51:42 UTC

[all] Java 5 vs. 6

Hi All,

[pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
support from Oracle.

How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?

Thank you,
Gary

-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi *,

I am in the situation where 1.6 would be preferred (and that's why I
expressed my positive feeling on switching to JDK6): for Digester 3 I
had to revert the initial import of the Annotations Processor, because
still using Java5 com.sun.* APT APIs - not present at least in our
Continuum JVM - but if switching to Java6 to use javax APIs, older
users that didn't update their JVMs, could not get benefits from
eventual bufixes.

Any suggestion? TIA!!!
all the best,
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/



On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:20 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 February 2012 15:18, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2012 14:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.
>>> If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?
>>> I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used
>>> despite the end of support.
>>
>> I think there are several reasons:
>> - It strikes me as odd to release a new version of a component - such as
>> pool2 - targeting a version of the JVM that is already effectively obsolete.
>
> So are you saying that if we release a new version of commons-logging
> it should require Java 1.6?
> That would be completely unnecessary.
>
>> - There are some platforms (I am thinking primarily of OSX) where
>> getting ones hands on a Java 5 implementation requires a fair amount of
>> jumping through hoops. [1]
>
> But surely Eclipse can be told to target Java 1.5 ? That would at
> least deal with the compiler warnings.
>
>> - Pool2 feeds dbcp2 and Java6 includes JDBC4 which is not backwards
>> compatible with JDBC3. DBCP is already jumping through hoops with
>> 1.3/1.4 and targeting Java6 makes DBCP easier
>
> I don't see how problems with JDBC are relevant to Pool.
>
>> - Something we have seen in Tomcat is JVM bugs not being fixed in older
>> releases. The fewer older JVM versions we target, the less likely we are
>> to hit these sorts of bugs. Granted, I haven't seen any of this in
>> Commons. Yet.
>
>> Some of these arguments are pool2 specific but overall, my preference is
>> for targeting the lowest currently supported version of the JVM unless
>> there is a compelling argument not to.
>
> Java 1.5 *is* still supported.
>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> [1] I happened to be using my Mac to work on pool 2 and noticed a whole
>> bunch of @Override warnings because my Mac doesn't have a Java 5 (mainly
>> because after the latest OS upgrade I couldn't be bothered to jump
>> through the hoops yet again(,
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In short, if the project needs features found only in Java 6 then
>>> make it the minimum, otherwise support Java 5.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires
>>>> paid-for support from Oracle.
>>>>
>>>> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5
>>>> to Java 6?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, Gary
>>>>
>>>> -- E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org JUnit in
>>>> Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring
>>>> Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home:
>>>> http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>> 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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/02/2012 16:20, sebb wrote:
> On 10 February 2012 15:18, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2012 14:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.
>>> If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?
>>> I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used
>>> despite the end of support.
>>
>> I think there are several reasons:
>> - It strikes me as odd to release a new version of a component - such as
>> pool2 - targeting a version of the JVM that is already effectively obsolete.
> 
> So are you saying that if we release a new version of commons-logging
> it should require Java 1.6?
> That would be completely unnecessary.

I should have said major version. If we released commons-logging 2.x
tomorrow then targeting Java 6 - or even Java 7 - makes sense. If we
released 1.1.2 then I'd expect the minimum Java version to remain unchanged.

>> - There are some platforms (I am thinking primarily of OSX) where
>> getting ones hands on a Java 5 implementation requires a fair amount of
>> jumping through hoops. [1]
> 
> But surely Eclipse can be told to target Java 1.5 ? That would at
> least deal with the compiler warnings.

It can, but that doesn't handle API changes. Tomcat has had issues in
the past with building with a later Java release that has broken stuff.
That was JDBC again through that shouldn't affect pool.
2
>> - Pool2 feeds dbcp2 and Java6 includes JDBC4 which is not backwards
>> compatible with JDBC3. DBCP is already jumping through hoops with
>> 1.3/1.4 and targeting Java6 makes DBCP easier
> 
> I don't see how problems with JDBC are relevant to Pool.

Simply that DBCP is a significant user of pool and targeting Java 5
there is a pain. It makes sense to me to align the two but there is no
requirement to do so.

>> - Something we have seen in Tomcat is JVM bugs not being fixed in older
>> releases. The fewer older JVM versions we target, the less likely we are
>> to hit these sorts of bugs. Granted, I haven't seen any of this in
>> Commons. Yet.
> 
>> Some of these arguments are pool2 specific but overall, my preference is
>> for targeting the lowest currently supported version of the JVM unless
>> there is a compelling argument not to.
> 
> Java 1.5 *is* still supported.

You can find someone to support just about anything if you are prepared
to pay for the privilege. I suspect that the majority of our users no
longer have support for Java 5.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 10 February 2012 15:18, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 14:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.
>> If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?
>> I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used
>> despite the end of support.
>
> I think there are several reasons:
> - It strikes me as odd to release a new version of a component - such as
> pool2 - targeting a version of the JVM that is already effectively obsolete.

So are you saying that if we release a new version of commons-logging
it should require Java 1.6?
That would be completely unnecessary.

> - There are some platforms (I am thinking primarily of OSX) where
> getting ones hands on a Java 5 implementation requires a fair amount of
> jumping through hoops. [1]

But surely Eclipse can be told to target Java 1.5 ? That would at
least deal with the compiler warnings.

> - Pool2 feeds dbcp2 and Java6 includes JDBC4 which is not backwards
> compatible with JDBC3. DBCP is already jumping through hoops with
> 1.3/1.4 and targeting Java6 makes DBCP easier

I don't see how problems with JDBC are relevant to Pool.

> - Something we have seen in Tomcat is JVM bugs not being fixed in older
> releases. The fewer older JVM versions we target, the less likely we are
> to hit these sorts of bugs. Granted, I haven't seen any of this in
> Commons. Yet.

> Some of these arguments are pool2 specific but overall, my preference is
> for targeting the lowest currently supported version of the JVM unless
> there is a compelling argument not to.

Java 1.5 *is* still supported.

> Mark
>
>
> [1] I happened to be using my Mac to work on pool 2 and noticed a whole
> bunch of @Override warnings because my Mac doesn't have a Java 5 (mainly
> because after the latest OS upgrade I couldn't be bothered to jump
> through the hoops yet again(,
>
>
>>
>> In short, if the project needs features found only in Java 6 then
>> make it the minimum, otherwise support Java 5.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires
>>> paid-for support from Oracle.
>>>
>>> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5
>>> to Java 6?
>>>
>>> Thank you, Gary
>>>
>>> -- E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org JUnit in
>>> Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring
>>> Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home:
>>> http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> 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
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:

> On 10/02/2012 14:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.
>> If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?
>> I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used
>> despite the end of support.
> 
> I think there are several reasons:
> - It strikes me as odd to release a new version of a component - such as
> pool2 - targeting a version of the JVM that is already effectively obsolete.
> - There are some platforms (I am thinking primarily of OSX) where
> getting ones hands on a Java 5 implementation requires a fair amount of
> jumping through hoops. [1]
> - Pool2 feeds dbcp2 and Java6 includes JDBC4 which is not backwards
> compatible with JDBC3. DBCP is already jumping through hoops with
> 1.3/1.4 and targeting Java6 makes DBCP easier
> - Something we have seen in Tomcat is JVM bugs not being fixed in older
> releases. The fewer older JVM versions we target, the less likely we are
> to hit these sorts of bugs. Granted, I haven't seen any of this in
> Commons. Yet.
> 
> Some of these arguments are pool2 specific but overall, my preference is
> for targeting the lowest currently supported version of the JVM unless
> there is a compelling argument not to.
> 

I don't think any of your examples negates my recommendation.  It sounds like you have a proper justification for using Java 6 for Pool2.  

I disagree that just because free support is no longer available for Java 5 that that means it still isn't being used and developed against.

Ralph


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by William Speirs <ws...@apache.org>.
+1 for targeting Java 6 on new releases...

Bill-

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 10/02/2012 14:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
> > In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.
> > If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?
> > I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used
> > despite the end of support.
>
> I think there are several reasons:
> - It strikes me as odd to release a new version of a component - such as
> pool2 - targeting a version of the JVM that is already effectively
> obsolete.
> - There are some platforms (I am thinking primarily of OSX) where
> getting ones hands on a Java 5 implementation requires a fair amount of
> jumping through hoops. [1]
> - Pool2 feeds dbcp2 and Java6 includes JDBC4 which is not backwards
> compatible with JDBC3. DBCP is already jumping through hoops with
> 1.3/1.4 and targeting Java6 makes DBCP easier
> - Something we have seen in Tomcat is JVM bugs not being fixed in older
> releases. The fewer older JVM versions we target, the less likely we are
> to hit these sorts of bugs. Granted, I haven't seen any of this in
> Commons. Yet.
>
> Some of these arguments are pool2 specific but overall, my preference is
> for targeting the lowest currently supported version of the JVM unless
> there is a compelling argument not to.
>
> Mark
>
>
> [1] I happened to be using my Mac to work on pool 2 and noticed a whole
> bunch of @Override warnings because my Mac doesn't have a Java 5 (mainly
> because after the latest OS upgrade I couldn't be bothered to jump
> through the hoops yet again(,
>
>
> >
> > In short, if the project needs features found only in Java 6 then
> > make it the minimum, otherwise support Java 5.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires
> >> paid-for support from Oracle.
> >>
> >> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5
> >> to Java 6?
> >>
> >> Thank you, Gary
> >>
> >> -- E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org JUnit in
> >> Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring
> >> Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home:
> >> http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> 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: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/02/2012 14:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.
> If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?
> I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used
> despite the end of support.

I think there are several reasons:
- It strikes me as odd to release a new version of a component - such as
pool2 - targeting a version of the JVM that is already effectively obsolete.
- There are some platforms (I am thinking primarily of OSX) where
getting ones hands on a Java 5 implementation requires a fair amount of
jumping through hoops. [1]
- Pool2 feeds dbcp2 and Java6 includes JDBC4 which is not backwards
compatible with JDBC3. DBCP is already jumping through hoops with
1.3/1.4 and targeting Java6 makes DBCP easier
- Something we have seen in Tomcat is JVM bugs not being fixed in older
releases. The fewer older JVM versions we target, the less likely we are
to hit these sorts of bugs. Granted, I haven't seen any of this in
Commons. Yet.

Some of these arguments are pool2 specific but overall, my preference is
for targeting the lowest currently supported version of the JVM unless
there is a compelling argument not to.

Mark


[1] I happened to be using my Mac to work on pool 2 and noticed a whole
bunch of @Override warnings because my Mac doesn't have a Java 5 (mainly
because after the latest OS upgrade I couldn't be bothered to jump
through the hoops yet again(,


> 
> In short, if the project needs features found only in Java 6 then
> make it the minimum, otherwise support Java 5.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires
>> paid-for support from Oracle.
>> 
>> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5
>> to Java 6?
>> 
>> Thank you, Gary
>> 
>> -- E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org JUnit in
>> Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring
>> Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK 
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home:
>> http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
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: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
Le 10/02/2012 15:41, Ralph Goers a écrit :
> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.  If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?  I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used despite the end of support.
>
> In short, if the project needs features found only in Java 6 then make it the minimum, otherwise support Java 5.

+1

I prefer good technical reasons than blaming Oracle support strategy.

Emmanuel Bourg

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 10 February 2012 14:41, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.  If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?  I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used despite the end of support.

AIUI, 1.5 is still supported, but you have to pay for the support.

> In short, if the project needs features found only in Java 6 then make it the minimum, otherwise support Java 5.

+1

Since code compiled for Java 1.5 will run on Java 1.6+ why exclude
some users without good reason?

> Ralph
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
>> support from Oracle.
>>
>> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.  If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?  I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used despite the end of support.

In short, if the project needs features found only in Java 6 then make it the minimum, otherwise support Java 5.

Ralph

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
> support from Oracle.
> 
> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?
> 
> Thank you,
> Gary
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:38 PM, James Carman
<ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd have thought they'd be fine.
>>
>> A Java6 user using 1.1 upgrading to 1.2 would be able to drop it in.
>>
>> A Java5 user wouldn't, but that's dropping support not binary incompatibility.
>>
>
> So, would any new features and bug fixes for 1.1 have to be released
> as 1.1.x for the Java 5 folks' sake?

Nope.

I'd accept that if we had a security issue, that 1.1.x would be
necessary for the Java 5'ers, but we've never had a security issue so
I've no reason to expect one.

> I think this is somewhat of a moot point, since there are fewer and
> fewer people using Java 5 these days (even my company is on Java 6
> surprisingly).  I'm all about charging forward.  I just don't want to
> paint ourselves in a corner.

We paint ourselves into a corner whenever we assume statements are
unchangeable. Even in my statement above I reserve the right to vote
+1 on a 1.1.x that has some valuable new feature. I take it as a given
that 'business' is fluid :)

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd have thought they'd be fine.
>
> A Java6 user using 1.1 upgrading to 1.2 would be able to drop it in.
>
> A Java5 user wouldn't, but that's dropping support not binary incompatibility.
>

So, would any new features and bug fixes for 1.1 have to be released
as 1.1.x for the Java 5 folks' sake?

I think this is somewhat of a moot point, since there are fewer and
fewer people using Java 5 these days (even my company is on Java 6
surprisingly).  I'm all about charging forward.  I just don't want to
paint ourselves in a corner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:45 PM, James Carman
<ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't see why we would have to wait on major versions for updates.
>>
>
> Well, if we compile foo-1.1 with Java 5 and then compile foo-1.2 with
> Java 6 (assuming we don't target 1.5 on the compile), doesn't that
> make them effectively binary incompatible?  Version 1.2 isn't a
> drop-in replacement for 1.1, since it requires a Java version change.
> I don't think that would be too cool.

I'd have thought they'd be fine.

A Java6 user using 1.1 upgrading to 1.2 would be able to drop it in.

A Java5 user wouldn't, but that's dropping support not binary incompatibility.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see why we would have to wait on major versions for updates.
>

Well, if we compile foo-1.1 with Java 5 and then compile foo-1.2 with
Java 6 (assuming we don't target 1.5 on the compile), doesn't that
make them effectively binary incompatible?  Version 1.2 isn't a
drop-in replacement for 1.1, since it requires a Java version change.
I don't think that would be too cool.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 February 2012 02:23, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>> I am +1 to allowing new major version releases to go to Java 6.  Heck,
>> I'm +1 to them choosing to jump straight to Java 7.  I don't think we
>> should require it or anything, though.
>
> The Commons versioning convention does not actually require a major
> version bump for JVM changes.
> But I would hope that a big jump (e.g. 1.5 to 1.7) would be only be
> done in a major version.

+1 for moving to Java 6. Java 5 is insecure and we should not be supporting it.

I don't see why we would have to wait on major versions for updates.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 11 February 2012 02:23, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> I am +1 to allowing new major version releases to go to Java 6.  Heck,
> I'm +1 to them choosing to jump straight to Java 7.  I don't think we
> should require it or anything, though.

The Commons versioning convention does not actually require a major
version bump for JVM changes.
But I would hope that a big jump (e.g. 1.5 to 1.7) would be only be
done in a major version.

There were some serious optimisation bugs reported with with Java 7
last year - have these all been fixed?

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
>> support from Oracle.
>>
>> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
I am +1 to allowing new major version releases to go to Java 6.  Heck,
I'm +1 to them choosing to jump straight to Java 7.  I don't think we
should require it or anything, though.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
> support from Oracle.
>
> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?
>
> Thank you,
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by henrib <he...@apache.org>.
We actually did vote on this matter :-)

"Can the next version major version of a project require Java6? (i.e. drop
Java 1.5)"
Result was "yes".

http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Can-the-next-version-major-version-of-a-project-require-Java6-i-e-drop-Java-1-5-tt4176593.html

Cheers,
Henrib

--
View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/all-Java-5-vs-6-tp4376289p4378518.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Benedikt Ritter <be...@systemoutprintln.de>.
I think that is what Gary meant. I'm +1 as well!

Benedikt

Am 10.02.2012 15:04, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
> I think that at least new components/versions can be moved forward Java6 :)
>
> all the best!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory<ga...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
>>> support from Oracle.
>>>
>>> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?
>>
>> I feel pretty good with it.
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed:<http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>> Spring Batch in Action:<http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
I think that at least new components/versions can be moved forward Java6 :)

all the best!
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/



On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
>> support from Oracle.
>>
>> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?
>
> I feel pretty good with it.
> Cheers
>
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
> support from Oracle.
>
> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?

I feel pretty good with it.
Cheers


>
> Thank you,
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by James Ring <sj...@jdns.org>.
Java 5 is done. Java 6 EOL (as far as oracle is concerned) is July 2012 (5
months).

Java 6 please, there's no good reason to support 5. We should be looking
towards Java 7.
On Feb 10, 2012 5:52 AM, "Gary Gregory" <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
> support from Oracle.
>
> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java
> 6?
>
> Thank you,
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>

Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6

Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 10/02/2012 14:51, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Hi All,
> 
> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
> support from Oracle.
> 
> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?

I think it would be a good thing. Now Java 5 seems rather out of date
and Java 6 is fully deployed.

Luc

> 
> Thank you,
> Gary
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org