commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] [Created] (JEXL-123) Redesign API for stability
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:06:20 GMT
On 5 December 2011 09:34, henrib <henrib@apache.org> wrote:
> Sebb;
> Lets not return the pb; Java6 is not downwards compatible with Java 1.5.

Of course not; that's the point.

> There is a cost in maintaining 2 JDKs on 3 boxes, a cost in remembering that
> @Override can not be used on interfaces implementation, that addAll is not
> there, a cost in switching environments before using mvn and publishing,
> etc. All these "little" things that accumulated make it a pain in the a....

That is partly why we have CI systems such as Continuum.

> But, again, the main point is just that it is not useful to maintain Java
> 1.5 which is eol; JEXL3 is a new project API intended for active/new
> projects and thus will be used and deployed on Java 6. Besides, there is
> always JEXL 2.1 - soon to be released I hope - which will cover the Java 1.5
> aficionados needs.
>
> Why do you want to impose an unnecessary compatibility ?

Why do you wish to impose a potentially unnecessary compatibily?

> Is there anything
> in the Commons charter that states that obsolete platforms need to be
> deployment targets?

No, but Commons does strive for compatibility as far as possible.

> And IMHO, it is a disservice to the Java community to
> let them run new APIs on Java 1.5 when Java7 is out.

Irrelevant; they can still run any Commons component that targets 1.4
or 1.5 on Java7.

> Finally, do you really need to challenge any change or evolution even when
> not related to stability or quality ?

No, but I think it's necessary to explain why the change in JVM is
necessary for end-users.

The change between 1.4 and 1.5 was much easier to justify, as there
were huge improvements; not least in the memory model.

There are of course improvements in Java 1.6, but they are not of the
same order.

So unless there is a feature in Java 1.6 that is essential for JEXL 3,
then I don't think it's necessary to make Java 1.6 a requirement.

> Will we have to call votes for everything and anything ?

No, but I think it's necessary to justify the change in JVM.

I have yet to see a technical argument why 1.6 is necessary.

> And then we wonder why people seem to be fed up;
> re-read Simo, JamesC, GaryG recent message in the "[JEXL] Jexl 2.1"
> thread...

Also see response from Joerg Schaible.

In Commons particularly, it is important to strive for compatibilty.


> Regards,
> Henrib
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/Re-jira-Created-JEXL-123-Redesign-API-for-stability-tp4157779p4159821.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


Mime
View raw message