commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [Math] Supported Java versions
Date Sat, 12 Jul 2014 13:19:17 GMT
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:52:22 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/20/14, 9:56 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> On 06/20/2014 05:30 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:57:41 +0200, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>>> On 20 Jun 2014 16:37, "Gilles" <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:18:08 +0200, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>>>>> Java 5 is already eol. Anybody still using it is certainly in
>>>>>> maintenance
>>>>>> mode thus adding now a feature that is available in java 6 does 
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> any sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> This a strong statement in a forum where it has _always_ been
>>>>> indicated that no post-Java-5 feature could be used.
>>>> These two are completely different things.
>>>>
>>>> Not using more recent java features was done in order to still 
>>>> support
>>>> users that are stuck with java 5 but want/have to use commons.
>>>>
>>>> Duplicating java 6 features in 2014 is pointless. What is the 
>>>> expected
>>>> userbase of this feature?
>>> Commons Math itself. And this was the real purpose of duplicating 
>>> Java 6:
>>> no user ever asked for those methods in MathArrays. They were 
>>> implemented
>>> for the sole reason that CM could not contain calls to methods not 
>>> yet
>>> available in Java 5. [See the "pom.xml" of Commons Math.]
>>>
>>>> New users will certainly have adopted more recent
>>>> versions of java and anybody still using java 5 and having a need 
>>>> for
>>>> this
>>>> will hopefully have implemented it already in his own codebase.
>>> This is completely unrelated to the issue.
>> Looking at the original JIRA issue (MATH-1130) it was not clear that
>> this is actually related to MATH-1120 and sounded like a user 
>> request to
>> support this functionality.
>>
>> As this functionality is used by Commons Math itself the inclusion 
>> is of
>> course ok.
>>
>> Regarding the supported versions:
>>
>>  * for the 3.x branch I would stick with java 5
>>  * for the new 4.x branch I would at least switch to java 7
>
> +1
> Phil

Do we all agree?

Why not go all the way and switching to Java 8? Any downside?


Gilles


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message