commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:48:32 GMT
If it's compiled at a higher target version, it's not a drop-in
replacement. They must upgrade their JRE. 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).

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>
> > >
>

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