You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> on 2008/05/23 21:36:38 UTC
[vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Hi!
Since it is not that easy to get in touch with a jdk 1.3 (or I tried not
hard enough ;-) ) I'd like to ask if everyone is fine to start VFS 2
with jdk1.5?
As long as no other development need requires it to enhance the VFS 2
api I do not plan to introduce generics yet (I don't see that many
places for this in VFS), though sticking with jdk 1.3 seems uncool, no? ;-)
Seriously, it should really be the right time to leave jdk 1.3 behind.
Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.
If required, JDK 1.4 will do the trick too, though, this is EOL with
October 2008 too.
[ ] Go on with JDK 1.5
[ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
[ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
Ciao,
Mario
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Posted by Jörg Schaible <Jo...@Elsag-Solutions.com>.
> [X] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Here's my vote. I still think we should come up with a standardized
plan for when we change package names. There are different situations
that we need to consider:
1. Jumping JDK/language versions.
2. API Incompatibility
3. Serialization incompatibility.
[X] Go on with JDK 1.5
[ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
[ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
[X] Go on with JDK 1.5
Niall
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Since it is not that easy to get in touch with a jdk 1.3 (or I tried not
> hard enough ;-) ) I'd like to ask if everyone is fine to start VFS 2 with
> jdk1.5?
>
> As long as no other development need requires it to enhance the VFS 2 api I
> do not plan to introduce generics yet (I don't see that many places for this
> in VFS), though sticking with jdk 1.3 seems uncool, no? ;-)
>
> Seriously, it should really be the right time to leave jdk 1.3 behind.
> Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
> rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.
>
> If required, JDK 1.4 will do the trick too, though, this is EOL with October
> 2008 too.
>
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
+1 for JDK 1.5
Luc
Mario Ivankovits a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Since it is not that easy to get in touch with a jdk 1.3 (or I tried not
> hard enough ;-) ) I'd like to ask if everyone is fine to start VFS 2
> with jdk1.5?
>
> As long as no other development need requires it to enhance the VFS 2
> api I do not plan to introduce generics yet (I don't see that many
> places for this in VFS), though sticking with jdk 1.3 seems uncool, no? ;-)
>
> Seriously, it should really be the right time to leave jdk 1.3 behind.
> Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
> rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.
>
> If required, JDK 1.4 will do the trick too, though, this is EOL with
> October 2008 too.
>
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> It's easy enough to get 1.3 from java.sun.com ... I also got 1.2 and
> 1.1 from there recently.
>
Ah, yes, now I found it too, it's in archive.
>> Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
>> rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.
>>
>
> Not sure I understand why the API needs to change at all.
>
Yepp, it is also the plan. I just don't wanted to put anything in stone yet.
Ciao,
Mario
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 23/05/2008, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Since it is not that easy to get in touch with a jdk 1.3 (or I tried not
> hard enough ;-) ) I'd like to ask if everyone is fine to start VFS 2 with
> jdk1.5?
>
It's easy enough to get 1.3 from java.sun.com ... I also got 1.2 and
1.1 from there recently.
> As long as no other development need requires it to enhance the VFS 2 api I
> do not plan to introduce generics yet (I don't see that many places for this
> in VFS), though sticking with jdk 1.3 seems uncool, no? ;-)
>
> Seriously, it should really be the right time to leave jdk 1.3 behind.
OK.
> Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
> rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.
Not sure I understand why the API needs to change at all.
> If required, JDK 1.4 will do the trick too, though, this is EOL with
> October 2008 too.
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [X] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Posted by Filip Defoort <fi...@cirquedigital.com>.
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> [ X] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
>
Cheers,
- Filip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> [X] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org