commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Can the next version major version of a project require Java6? (i.e. drop Java 1.5)
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:45:36 GMT
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I think all that Sebastian is saying is something like "if you can
> >>> create your new, cool API and the only things you really miss from
> >>> Java 6 are @Override on interface implementation methods and
> >>> ServiceLoader, for example, maybe it's worth that tiny bit of extra
> >>> pain to reach that slightly larger audience."  We all feel frustrated
> >>> from time to time working in the community setting; I've been there
> >>> myself, but I don't think Seb is just trying to be a killjoy just for
> >>> the hell of it.
> >>
> >> Yes, you might be right on this interpretation.
> >>
> >> As long as there a volunteers for maintaining jexl2 on j5 setting, I
> >> am fine with keeping j5 for it. To be clear, I am not saying we kill
> >> jexl2 today or quit jdk5 support for jexl2.
> >>
> >> But we should not make it a policy to start a new, major version with
> >> the lowest JDK version possible when the actual maintainers would like
> >> to use a current platform - this needs no discussion imho, they should
> >> simply do as they please.
> >
> > I agree that the developers of a component should do as they
> > [collectively] please.  However, in the case of [jexl] it appears that
> > Seb is interested in the development of this component.  He may
> > continue to be interested in the development of a v3.x of [jexl].  Now
> > we don't have as clear-cut a case of do-ocracy and henrib just doing
> > what he pleases anymore, because he has to do instead "as near as he
> > can get to what he pleases while still functioning in a
> > consensus-based manner."  A possible sequence of events:
> >
> >  - henrib proposes that [jexl] include feature X, using feature Y
> > from Java 6, thus justifying this minimum version.  Assuming the
> > community doesn't vote down the feature on its own merits, Java 6 it
> > is.
> >  - sebb can then come along say, hey, I know we agreed on feature X,
> > but I can put in 4 hours of work or create a new Commons component to
> > reimplement feature Y, and now Java 5 users can also benefit from
> > [jexl] 3!
> >
> > Assuming someone else is willing to do the *actual* work required to
> > keep Java 5 compatibility, are you really going to spend time and
> > energy fighting for interface @Overrides?  Obviously there would
> > probably be some point at which Seb in this example would say, sure, I
> > could reimplement feature Y, but it's going to take ten hours, twenty
> > hours.  Not worth it; have your Java 6!
> >
> > This is the way I see our community as having to function.
>
> With just 2 committers on a component, is not really easy to get an
> consens when both have different opinions. What now?
> Henri needs to wait until Sebb gives up java5.
>

No one has veto power here. We're all reasonable folks. Well, I'd like to
think I am. Most of us are passionate and opinionated. That a good thing.

If you work towards a .jexl3 Java 6 release and get the votes to get an RC
out, I won't and can't stop you. Actually, I'm all for it :)

Gary


> ...
>
> Christian
>
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Matt
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 5 December 2011 18:10, henrib <henrib@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> sebb-2-2 wrote
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My view is that while there is still a need for software
to be
> able to
> >>>>>>> run on Java 1.5, we should not insist on requiring a minimum
of
> >>>>>>> 1.6.*unless* there is good technical reason for doing so.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> But you don't consider a good (technical) reason the fact that
the
> >>>>>> contributor can not/does not want to incur the cost of maintaining
> a JDK 1.5
> >>>>>> on its dev platforms to be able to contribute to newer versions...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, I don't consider that a valid reason on its own.
> >>>>
> >>>> Committing should be fun. If one does not want to support JDK 1.5 he
> >>>> goes away. Henri seems as he does not want and would like to put
> >>>> effort in a more modern environment. In addition, how many people can
> >>>> you attract with a JDK 1.5 version to contribute? For me this is valid
> >>>> reason.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> And no-one is stating that Java 1.5 is not in used in production
> somewhere;
> >>>>>> but IMHO, these are not the ones that will be JEXL3 users,
> especially since
> >>>>>> they have 2.1 (soon).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyway and beyond the point, my advice to 1.5 users is that
before
> trying to
> >>>>>> use "new" versions of libraries, migrating away from an
> unsupported/EOLed
> >>>>>> platform should be their priority.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Indeed, ideally everyone would now be using Java 6 and Windows users
> >>>>> should all upgrade to Windows 7 etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But that is a separate issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> No it is not.
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems you ignore my idea on having jexl2 in maintenance mode, but
> >>>> this is actually what MS did with Win XP. Now they don't support it.
I
> >>>> ask myself, why do we need to support outdated jdks until all
> >>>> committers are gone away or the library is the outdated people get
> >>>> some fresher stuff (Collections vs Guava)?
> >>>>
> >>>> If Henri is the opinion that people should use jdk6 he should be
> >>>> allowed to create such a version and call it Jexl3.
> >>>> If you want to keep a jdk5 version, you are of course allowed to
> >>>> support that one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Christian
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
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

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