commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sun, Dapeng" <dapeng....@intel.com>
Subject RE: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Date Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:27:54 GMT
Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and Matt for all your input.

How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK
version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0. 

Regards
Dapeng

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Sicker [mailto:boards@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not upgrading anything else,
either, nor would they be adding in new dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across
lately has been in legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).

On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>
> Gary
> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should 
> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that 
> > version might still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to 
> > be added to Java
> so I
> > don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If 
> > there
> is a
> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a 
> > branch of the the release for that version of Java.  The web site 
> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the 
> > appropriate Java versions.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > >
> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I 
> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet 
> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> > >
> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code 
> > > still works on Java 6.
> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and 
> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> > >
> > > [1] 
> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > >
> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann 
> > > <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni

> > >>> 2016
> > >>>
> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like

> > >>>> Java
> 6?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than 
> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest 
> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for? 
> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> > >>
> > >> Jochen
> > >>
> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> ---- 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>



--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
Mime
View raw message