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 2012/05/12 22:41:45 UTC
[VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked as
VFS-415.
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: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
It's been mentioned before for a next gen VFS, a Java 7 only project obviously.
Gary
On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:45, James Ring <sj...@jdns.org> wrote:
> Has anybody looked at the Java 7 NIO File API?
>
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/nio/file/package-summary.html
>
> I think VFS should be able to make great contributions to that by
> porting filesystem implementations to it.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM, garydgregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (posting from nabble as I've lost the thread in my inbox)
>>
>> I want to revive using Java 6 this for trunk. Java 5 is dead, no only is
>> forcing projects to update to the trunk stream from VFS 2.0.
>>
>> In addition to the list below:
>>
>> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
>> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
>> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
>> patch.
>> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
>> commons-io 2.3.
>>
>> *I want to use Java 6 @Override on more methods which I find extremely
>> helpful.*
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed
>>> prior to the change. A
>>
>>
>> This has been backed out of SVN for now.
>>
>> (from the JIRA:)
>>
>> Whys:
>> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
>> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
>> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
>> patch.
>> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
>> commons-io 2.3.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires
>>> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary
>>> before asking him to revert it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
>>>>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>>>>> as VFS-415.
>>>>
>>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
>>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
>>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
>>> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
>>> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> /Andreas
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VFS-Update-VFS-trunk-to-Java-6-tp4629464p4635119.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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Yes - I noticed that quite a while ago and have mentioned that VFS 3.0 should be targeted at that. If you would like to help get that started we would be happy to have the help!
Ralph
On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:45 AM, James Ring wrote:
> Has anybody looked at the Java 7 NIO File API?
>
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/nio/file/package-summary.html
>
> I think VFS should be able to make great contributions to that by
> porting filesystem implementations to it.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM, garydgregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (posting from nabble as I've lost the thread in my inbox)
>>
>> I want to revive using Java 6 this for trunk. Java 5 is dead, no only is
>> forcing projects to update to the trunk stream from VFS 2.0.
>>
>> In addition to the list below:
>>
>> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
>> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
>> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
>> patch.
>> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
>> commons-io 2.3.
>>
>> *I want to use Java 6 @Override on more methods which I find extremely
>> helpful.*
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed
>>> prior to the change. A
>>
>>
>> This has been backed out of SVN for now.
>>
>> (from the JIRA:)
>>
>> Whys:
>> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
>> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
>> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
>> patch.
>> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
>> commons-io 2.3.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires
>>> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary
>>> before asking him to revert it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
>>>>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>>>>> as VFS-415.
>>>>
>>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
>>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
>>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
>>> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
>>> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> /Andreas
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VFS-Update-VFS-trunk-to-Java-6-tp4629464p4635119.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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by James Ring <sj...@jdns.org>.
Has anybody looked at the Java 7 NIO File API?
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/nio/file/package-summary.html
I think VFS should be able to make great contributions to that by
porting filesystem implementations to it.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM, garydgregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (posting from nabble as I've lost the thread in my inbox)
>
> I want to revive using Java 6 this for trunk. Java 5 is dead, no only is
> forcing projects to update to the trunk stream from VFS 2.0.
>
> In addition to the list below:
>
> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
> patch.
> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
> commons-io 2.3.
>
> *I want to use Java 6 @Override on more methods which I find extremely
> helpful.*
>
> Thank you,
> Gary
>
> --
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed
>> prior to the change. A
>
>
> This has been backed out of SVN for now.
>
> (from the JIRA:)
>
> Whys:
> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
> patch.
> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
> commons-io 2.3.
>
> Gary
>
>
>> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires
>> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary
>> before asking him to revert it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
>> >> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>> >> as VFS-415.
>> >
>> > I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
>> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
>> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
>> >
>> > /Andreas
>> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VFS-Update-VFS-trunk-to-Java-6-tp4629464p4635119.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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:42, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 03:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> For now, I want @override so I am ok with 1.6 source but I is safe to
>>> the have 1.5 target? Commons-io >=2.3 is not pressing for VFS.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>
>> Why would it not be? If that is all you are doing the @Override doesn't make it to the actual Class. See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/annotation/RetentionPolicy.html#SOURCE for the retention policy used by @Override.
>
> Does not work for me; just tried changing target for pool and running
> "mvn clean compile":
>
> [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE
> [INFO] ------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Compilation failure
> Failure executing javac, but could not parse the error:
> javac: source release 1.6 requires target release 1.6
>
> ==
>
> I'm not sure that wanting to use @Override for interface
> implementations is a very good reason for requiring 1.6.
>
> If there is new functionality in Java 1.6 that is required for VFS then fine.
> But not for a minor annotation issue.
Hi all,
ATM I do not see a runtime reason for Java 6 but I have not looked for
one really.
I do see a development time reason in the value of @Override. I do see
run time and dev time reasons as both drivers for adopting a newer
JDK.
Gary
>
>> Ralph
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2012, at 16:00, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Override is a compile annotation so we could have source be 1.6 and target 1.5 for that. Do you have a pressing need to upgrade to commons-io 2.3? If that is a necessity than I am OK with upgrading to Java 6 for the target. IOW, I'm not in favor of upgrading just because "Java 5 is dead" but because we actually have a requirement to do it.
>>>>
>>>> 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] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17 June 2012 03:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> For now, I want @override so I am ok with 1.6 source but I is safe to
>> the have 1.5 target? Commons-io >=2.3 is not pressing for VFS.
>>
>> Gary
>
> Why would it not be? If that is all you are doing the @Override doesn't make it to the actual Class. See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/annotation/RetentionPolicy.html#SOURCE for the retention policy used by @Override.
Does not work for me; just tried changing target for pool and running
"mvn clean compile":
[ERROR] BUILD FAILURE
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Compilation failure
Failure executing javac, but could not parse the error:
javac: source release 1.6 requires target release 1.6
==
I'm not sure that wanting to use @Override for interface
implementations is a very good reason for requiring 1.6.
If there is new functionality in Java 1.6 that is required for VFS then fine.
But not for a minor annotation issue.
> Ralph
>
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2012, at 16:00, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> @Override is a compile annotation so we could have source be 1.6 and target 1.5 for that. Do you have a pressing need to upgrade to commons-io 2.3? If that is a necessity than I am OK with upgrading to Java 6 for the target. IOW, I'm not in favor of upgrading just because "Java 5 is dead" but because we actually have a requirement to do it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> For now, I want @override so I am ok with 1.6 source but I is safe to
> the have 1.5 target? Commons-io >=2.3 is not pressing for VFS.
>
> Gary
Why would it not be? If that is all you are doing the @Override doesn't make it to the actual Class. See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/annotation/RetentionPolicy.html#SOURCE for the retention policy used by @Override.
Ralph
>
> On Jun 16, 2012, at 16:00, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> @Override is a compile annotation so we could have source be 1.6 and target 1.5 for that. Do you have a pressing need to upgrade to commons-io 2.3? If that is a necessity than I am OK with upgrading to Java 6 for the target. IOW, I'm not in favor of upgrading just because "Java 5 is dead" but because we actually have a requirement to do it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
Re: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
For now, I want @override so I am ok with 1.6 source but I is safe to
the have 1.5 target? Commons-io >=2.3 is not pressing for VFS.
Gary
On Jun 16, 2012, at 16:00, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> @Override is a compile annotation so we could have source be 1.6 and target 1.5 for that. Do you have a pressing need to upgrade to commons-io 2.3? If that is a necessity than I am OK with upgrading to Java 6 for the target. IOW, I'm not in favor of upgrading just because "Java 5 is dead" but because we actually have a requirement to do it.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2012, at 7:46 AM, garydgregory wrote:
>
>> (posting from nabble as I've lost the thread in my inbox)
>>
>> I want to revive using Java 6 this for trunk. Java 5 is dead, no only is
>> forcing projects to update to the trunk stream from VFS 2.0.
>>
>> In addition to the list below:
>>
>> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
>> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
>> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
>> patch.
>> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
>> commons-io 2.3.
>>
>> *I want to use Java 6 @Override on more methods which I find extremely
>> helpful.*
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed
>>> prior to the change. A
>>
>>
>> This has been backed out of SVN for now.
>>
>> (from the JIRA:)
>>
>> Whys:
>> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
>> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
>> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
>> patch.
>> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
>> commons-io 2.3.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires
>>> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary
>>> before asking him to revert it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
>>>>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>>>>> as VFS-415.
>>>>
>>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
>>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
>>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
>>> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
>>> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> /Andreas
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VFS-Update-VFS-trunk-to-Java-6-tp4629464p4635119.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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
@Override is a compile annotation so we could have source be 1.6 and target 1.5 for that. Do you have a pressing need to upgrade to commons-io 2.3? If that is a necessity than I am OK with upgrading to Java 6 for the target. IOW, I'm not in favor of upgrading just because "Java 5 is dead" but because we actually have a requirement to do it.
Ralph
On Jun 15, 2012, at 7:46 AM, garydgregory wrote:
> (posting from nabble as I've lost the thread in my inbox)
>
> I want to revive using Java 6 this for trunk. Java 5 is dead, no only is
> forcing projects to update to the trunk stream from VFS 2.0.
>
> In addition to the list below:
>
> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
> patch.
> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
> commons-io 2.3.
>
> *I want to use Java 6 @Override on more methods which I find extremely
> helpful.*
>
> Thank you,
> Gary
>
> --
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed
>> prior to the change. A
>
>
> This has been backed out of SVN for now.
>
> (from the JIRA:)
>
> Whys:
> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
> patch.
> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
> commons-io 2.3.
>
> Gary
>
>
>> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires
>> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary
>> before asking him to revert it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
>>>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>>>> as VFS-415.
>>>
>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
>> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
>> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
>>>
>>> /Andreas
>>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VFS-Update-VFS-trunk-to-Java-6-tp4629464p4635119.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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by garydgregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
(posting from nabble as I've lost the thread in my inbox)
I want to revive using Java 6 this for trunk. Java 5 is dead, no only is
forcing projects to update to the trunk stream from VFS 2.0.
In addition to the list below:
- Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
- Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
patch.
- Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
commons-io 2.3.
*I want to use Java 6 @Override on more methods which I find extremely
helpful.*
Thank you,
Gary
--
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed
> prior to the change. A
This has been backed out of SVN for now.
(from the JIRA:)
Whys:
- Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
- Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
patch.
- Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
commons-io 2.3.
Gary
> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires
> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary
> before asking him to revert it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
> >> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
> >> as VFS-415.
> >
> > I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
> >
> > /Andreas
> >
--
View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VFS-Update-VFS-trunk-to-Java-6-tp4629464p4635119.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: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed
> prior to the change. A
This has been backed out of SVN for now.
(from the JIRA:)
Whys:
- Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version.
- Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to
patch.
- Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like
commons-io 2.3.
Gary
> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires
> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary
> before asking him to revert it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson <
> andreas.persson@idainfront.se> wrote:
>
> >> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
> >> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
> >> as VFS-415.
> >
> > I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
> >
> > /Andreas
> >
> >
> Т���������������������������������������������������������������������ХF�
> V�7V'67&�&R� R�� �â FWb�V�7V'67&�&T 6�����2� 6�R��&pФf�" FF�F��� � 6���
> �G2� R�� �â FWbֆV� 6�����2� 6�R��&p�
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
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: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed prior to the change. As a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary before asking him to revert it.
Ralph
On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson <an...@idainfront.se> wrote:
>> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>> as VFS-415.
>
> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
>
> /Andreas
>
> Т���������������������������������������������������������������������ХF�V�7V'67&�&R�R���âFWb�V�7V'67&�&T6�����2�6�R��&pФf�"FF�F����6����G2�R���âFWbֆV�6�����2�6�R��&p�
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Andreas Persson <an...@idainfront.se>.
> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
> as VFS-415.
I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
/Andreas
Re: [VFS] Update VFS trunk to Java 6
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Does anything require Java 6? What "older" jars are causing problems.
Ralph
On May 12, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked as
> VFS-415.
>
> 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