camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Move to java 8 for 2.17?
Date Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:22:54 GMT
I'd love to see use of Optional at least in the Message and Exchange
interfaces.

On 29 January 2016 at 13:38, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dan, I like that!
>
> /je
> > On Jan 29, 2016, at 12:30 PM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Proper Java8 support could give us quite an opportunity here. Marking our
> > interfaces as functional (not required of course) and designing our API
> to
> > be "lambda-friendly"
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:24 AM Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> THAT said, I would be OK with going through all the code, removing all
> the
> >> stuff marked deprecated, update to JDK8, and call it 3.0.   :-)   It’s
> just
> >> a version number.  We can always do a 4.0 if needed/wanted.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 3:21 AM, Christian Müller <
> >> christian.mueller@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, it's a minor release. And regarding to [1]:
> >>>>
> >>>> MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible
> >> manner
> >>>>
> >>>> And that's not the case, if you have to upgrade your JRE.
> >>>
> >>> How is it not backwards compatible?  All of your source that you used
> >> with Camel 2.16 should compile and run fine with 2.18.  You need to
> update
> >> your JDK, but the source and API’s and everything are still completely
> >> compatible.   From an API standpoint, compatible.   And the SemVer
> thing is
> >> all about the API’s.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But like was already said, I don’t think we’ve EVER done a Camel
> release
> >> that didn’t upgrade a dependency in an underlying library that wasn’t
> >> compatible.  We’ve dropped support for versions of things like jetty and
> >> older versions of sl4fj and older versions of Karaf and such as well.
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] http://semver.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Christian
> >>>> -----------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Software Integration Specialist
> >>>>
> >>>> Apache Member
> >>>> V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer
> >>>> Apache Incubator PMC Member
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2.16 -> 2.17 is not a patch release, it’s a minor release with
new
> >>>>> features and dependency updates and such.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2.16.1 -> 2.16.2 is a patch release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would agree no changes in JDK requirements on a patch release.
  A
> >> minor
> >>>>> release is different.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 5:52 PM, Christian Müller <
> >>>>> christian.mueller@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm with James (even we did it otherwise in the past). A patch
> release
> >>>>>> shouldn't require you to upgrade your JRE.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7
> >>>>>> Camel 3.0 = Java 1.8
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> May it forces us to work on Camel 3.0 ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Christian
> >>>>>> -----------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Software Integration Specialist
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Apache Member
> >>>>>> V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer
> >>>>>> Apache Incubator PMC Member
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM, James Carman
> >>>>>>> <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would rather us bump the major version number if we're
going to
> >> start
> >>>>>>>> requiring users to use Java8.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yeah that was also my first thought.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would like to keep Camel 2.17 as-is on Java 1.7. Then
if 2.18 is
> >>>>>>> Java 1.8+ then its much easier to remember as the numbers
are
> >> aligned.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7
> >>>>>>> Camel 2.18 = Java 1.8
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We can always release Camel 2.17 sooner, its been a while
since
> 2.16,
> >>>>>>> so maybe aim for a release in next month?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A reason to keep it on 1.7 is also it would otherwise throw
some
> >> Camel
> >>>>>>> end users under the bus anticipating they can use it on
Java 1.7.
> >> Then
> >>>>>>> we can announce Camel 2.17 would be the last release with
Java 1.7
> -
> >>>>>>> even ahead of time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For master (targeting 2.17), I see we’re still
setup for Java7.
> >>>>> Would
> >>>>>>>>> it make sense to move to requiring Java8?  We can
certainly start
> >>>>> taking
> >>>>>>>>> advantage of the new things in Java8, but there
are also
> >> dependencies
> >>>>>>> (like
> >>>>>>>>> Jetty) that now require Java8 and more and more
of them will be
> >>>>>>> requiring
> >>>>>>>>> that.  (example:  CXF 3.2 will be Java8 only as
well)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It sometimes makes back merging fixes to 2.16/2.15
tricky if you
> >> use
> >>>>>>> Java8
> >>>>>>>>> features, but that’s going to be a problem eventually
anyway.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>>>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Claus Ibsen
> >>>>>>> -----------------
> >>>>>>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> >>>>>>> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daniel Kulp
> >>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Kulp
> >> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message