commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <>
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 22:13:39 GMT
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Matt Benson <> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson <> 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.



> Matt
>> Cheers
>>> Matt
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM, sebb <> wrote:
>>>>> On 5 December 2011 18:10, henrib <> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> but IMHO, these are not the ones that will be JEXL3 users, especially
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> --
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message