commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject RE: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
Date Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:16:55 GMT
+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
>
>

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