commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Date Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:56:53 GMT
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>
> >

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message