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 Thu, 16 Jun 2016 05:31:13 GMT
Thank all for the comments. I will file a jira to update CRYPTO to JDK 1.7.

Regards
Dapeng

-----Original Message-----
From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 9:35 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

On 15 June 2016 at 13:48, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> If it's compiled at a higher target version, it's not a drop-in 
> replacement. They must upgrade their JRE.

Only if their JRE is currently lower than the target version.

So whether it will affect many users depends on the JRE upgrade bump.

i.e.  at present a minimum target of Java 8 is likely to affect many more installations than
a min target of Java 7.
And an update to Java 6 is not likely to affect as many.

> One might argue that's actually
> *less* backward compatible. We've had this debate before. I don't 
> really care which way we go, but let's make sure we stay true to the 
> philosophy (if we want to maintain that philosophy).

Since Java is upwards compatible, generally hosts can be upgraded if necessary.

This is very different from changing Maven coords or package names, which have a much more
profound effect.

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 2016 7:51 AM, "James Carman" <james@carmanconsulting.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The trick is if we want to require a major version upgrade to bump 
>> > JDK levels. That's why you'd want to bump it now if possible.
>>
>> We've not required major version bumps for Java bumps in the past.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'd prefer to get to 1.7 as soon as possible, but if the API is 
>> > > ready
>> for a
>> > > 1.0 release already, we could wait for 1.1 or 1.2 before going 
>> > > full
>> 1.7.
>> > >
>> > > On 14 June 2016 at 06:16, Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1 to JDK7 on crypto
>> > > > On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <dapeng.sun@intel.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you
mean?
>> > > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, 
>> > > > > > dropping now
>> > > > should
>> > > > > be good idea IMO.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on 
>> > > > > upgrading JDK
>> to
>> > > > > 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is there anyone have other opinions?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards
>> > > > > Dapeng
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com]
>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
>> > > > > To: Commons Developers List
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
>> > > > > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping

>> > > > > now
>> > > should
>> > > > > be good idea IMO.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as 
>> > > > > Alpha
>> right?
>> > > > > (just a question)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > Uma
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <dapeng.sun@intel.com>
wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >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 don¹t 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
>> > > > > >> > don¹t 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>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > 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>
>> > >
>>

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

Mime
View raw message