commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <>
Subject Re: [all] Java 5 vs. 6
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:46:21 GMT
On 10/02/2012 16:20, sebb wrote:
> On 10 February 2012 15:18, Mark Thomas <> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2012 14:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable.
>>> If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it?
>>> I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used
>>> despite the end of support.
>> I think there are several reasons:
>> - It strikes me as odd to release a new version of a component - such as
>> pool2 - targeting a version of the JVM that is already effectively obsolete.
> So are you saying that if we release a new version of commons-logging
> it should require Java 1.6?
> That would be completely unnecessary.

I should have said major version. If we released commons-logging 2.x
tomorrow then targeting Java 6 - or even Java 7 - makes sense. If we
released 1.1.2 then I'd expect the minimum Java version to remain unchanged.

>> - There are some platforms (I am thinking primarily of OSX) where
>> getting ones hands on a Java 5 implementation requires a fair amount of
>> jumping through hoops. [1]
> But surely Eclipse can be told to target Java 1.5 ? That would at
> least deal with the compiler warnings.

It can, but that doesn't handle API changes. Tomcat has had issues in
the past with building with a later Java release that has broken stuff.
That was JDBC again through that shouldn't affect pool.
>> - Pool2 feeds dbcp2 and Java6 includes JDBC4 which is not backwards
>> compatible with JDBC3. DBCP is already jumping through hoops with
>> 1.3/1.4 and targeting Java6 makes DBCP easier
> I don't see how problems with JDBC are relevant to Pool.

Simply that DBCP is a significant user of pool and targeting Java 5
there is a pain. It makes sense to me to align the two but there is no
requirement to do so.

>> - Something we have seen in Tomcat is JVM bugs not being fixed in older
>> releases. The fewer older JVM versions we target, the less likely we are
>> to hit these sorts of bugs. Granted, I haven't seen any of this in
>> Commons. Yet.
>> Some of these arguments are pool2 specific but overall, my preference is
>> for targeting the lowest currently supported version of the JVM unless
>> there is a compelling argument not to.
> Java 1.5 *is* still supported.

You can find someone to support just about anything if you are prepared
to pay for the privilege. I suspect that the majority of our users no
longer have support for Java 5.


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

View raw message