commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Compiler targets and Java 9
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:02:00 GMT
I'm confused about one thing here. Sure, you can't use javac in 9 to
compile for 5, but can't java in 9 still run class files compiled against
5? If you couldn't run older java classes anymore, then I don't know why
Oracle continues to maintain backward compatibility in places that are
annoying.

On 5 June 2017 at 11:54, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> This whole discussion has me really confused.  According to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of
> Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version reached
> end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/
> <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even show
> Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 <
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
> forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates that
> it also was dropped in 2015.
>
> So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors
> who ship it support it?
>
> Ralph
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com <mailto:jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes
> >>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the
> >>>> previous
> >>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO.
> >>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.)
> >>>
> >>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release
> >>> would prevent a security release.
> >>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code
> >>> and change to 1.6 at the same time?
> >>
> >> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor,
> >> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a
> >> drop-in replacement.
> >>
> >
> > If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome
> to
> > provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If
> > your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing
> > security issues to address...
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >>
> >> Jochen
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >>
> >> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ <
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/>
> >> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org <mailto:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org <mailto:
> dev-help@commons.apache.org>
>



-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

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