Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGTHBS5guSCAY-qx9PbapEewCUk0JemKYASr3z926Cw_zZ-pTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <818538892b96c35755a3a8dea9e79791@scarlet.be> <eea5fe4b87ec274028288c168b558edd@scarlet.be>
 <CACmp6kqXKVtg_-oThVZC1m9MnSjKj14NZCW3hb2X_F3ij99Mmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <df80d45de53089f242bf2bcbb1dfe2e9@scarlet.be> <CACZkXPxmsTbjt3TR8zgg+vX+2A7vD5H0mVqhZ=Wk=cqxd3Qt-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7867d32be1055a3232cd02c8eec677a3@scarlet.be> <CAOGo0Vb=uzDvou_4i1tuMjoPVjQ8Hisiw50T8WRz_ey3su4Paw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACmp6koALuuatVJ7tEnWpfsnCcnxyE193sqjSvoRtHOqGGOayw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VaQ8CPBfHi0bxg2bFHT=Am6K=FOXyx7Dkyvvd0mk29XAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTHBS5guSCAY-qx9PbapEewCUk0JemKYASr3z926Cw_zZ-pTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 08:59:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CACZkXPzziOy1zGd9iTR291dVQUB8rcP3W0Ab_LoXSGuVD2+UKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Numbers] Java version?
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cd1f42553d5054e5047ac
archived-at: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:59:48 -0000

--001a113cd1f42553d5054e5047ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Apr 29, 2017 6:47 AM, "Raymond DeCampo" <ray@decampo.org> wrote:

Please note I wrote an issue concerning this last week or so.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-21

I noticed when moving code from [math] to [numbers] that [math] targets 7.
I had to make some minor downgrades in the code (use of diamond operator).

Given that [math] targets Java 7 and [numbers] is based on it, I see no
reason [numbers] shouldn't target 7 as well.


Sounds fine with me.

Gary


On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:30 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28 April 2017 at 16:05, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you're going to build for Java 6 using Java 7, then you should really
> > use something like <
> > http://www.mojohaus.org/animal-sniffer/animal-sniffer-maven-plugin/> to
> > prevent accidental usage of Java 7.
>
> And/Or actually use Java 6 to compile/test, which is pretty easy to do
> using the -Pjava-1.6 profile.
>
> > On 28 April 2017 at 09:51, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 28 April 2017 at 13:01, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >> > Hi.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:42:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Apr 27, 2017 8:21 AM, "Gilles" <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:10:57 -0500, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Choosing Java 8 or 7 for a new component depends on the APIs you
> want
> >> to
> >> >>> use for it more so than what's current.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Indeed, the question could be rephrased as: Is there anything to
> loose
> >> >> (for a new component) if we allow the larger API of Java 8?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I hear people are still using Java
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 6, but I doubt those projects are adapting new libraries or
> upgrading
> >> any
> >> >>> of their dependencies as it is...
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> That has seemed logical to me for a long time...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> I say pick the version you think is best.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > At this point, I can't say exactly.
> >> > The current code doesn't seem to need Java APIs beyond 6, but other
> >> > utilities yet to be added might benefit.
> >> > The only argument for leaving Java 6 is that we have to go through
> >> > hoops with the Jenkins configuration.
> >>
> >> That is not an argument for upping the Java version
> >>
> >> > Currently it fails in a way that looks cryptic to me.
> >>
> >> That's because Jenkins now requires Java 7 to run Maven jobs, though
> >> it does not seem to need it for all job types.
> >>
> >> > So, unless someone can fix it, I'll bump the dependency to Java 7.
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >> Surely you can just tell Jenkins to use Java 7 to build and test?
> >> There's no need for the source to be updated as well (there might be
> >> some Javadoc warnings, I suppose, but those can be fixed without
> >> compromising Java 6 compat.)
> >>
> >> But it's pretty easy to fix so it builds and tests using Java 6 -
> >> which job is it?
> >>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Gilles
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Gary
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Gilles
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 27 April 2017 at 09:41, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:49:01 +0200, Gilles wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The POM indicates:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>     <maven.compiler.source>1.6</maven.compiler.source>
> >> >>>>>     <maven.compiler.target>1.6</maven.compiler.target>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> but also:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>     <commons.release.desc>(requires Java
> 7+)</commons.release.desc>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Which is wrong?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Also, please not that keeping 1.6 compatibility seems to
> complicate
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> the Jenkins configuration:
> >> >>>>   https://builds.apache.org/view/Apache%20Commons/job/Commons_
> >> >>>> Numbers/14/console
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> For a new component, shouldn't we just go to Java 8?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Gilles
> >> >>>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > 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
>
>

--001a113cd1f42553d5054e5047ac--