From dev-return-169392-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@commons.apache.org Sat Jan 12 23:37:14 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id A6C6018066C for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:37:13 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 80163 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2019 22:37:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 80150 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jan 2019 22:37:11 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:37:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7DA7F1806EA for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:37:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.345 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.143, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j4mYEMZV_FtX for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:37:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf1-f174.google.com (mail-pf1-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 1348260F5F for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:37:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f174.google.com with SMTP id y126so8612046pfb.4 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:37:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=s+NNLxoLOgw2iXqa5ZJ1beHvOwcgiBDxaTNi0546mU8=; b=QNbYmJt2ZRXyCGTvCZSydom+TAmnvQnboau6W36DCsItYvQLDC9ezZC6vGqW9vtxp6 fPbOVllyKdu/i104i0gfE2uwL4MKV+vC20fengCR8DZiMZm/zepCd0+dXTTk8nZeSolz BbWq6tvMUtN8GJiIxF2ij3BQrFLaRhZb/qVh3VlVY29ukzpIhN9J5bM9Pe23Uq5VJJLi zy62zqX0m75WW+XDpx4knpZoEmew1/FI/s5cvC5LGxZdgNikGEf5zjy04rglt1PDmmUS 8YBphYckxIiR0D4YqjTY11g0hFbLAbxLP0D2WI+s5+H7p3hhB7FbyAt8LDrfANJ7XbGE BPBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=s+NNLxoLOgw2iXqa5ZJ1beHvOwcgiBDxaTNi0546mU8=; b=Uoh7+KM1voYM4RE+w5R+Ed30Iiq8S1sZA8AjZOTz5JLlMMGJtlTdughRzu+ECTQ9Dv pIT0vGY3riEdd0nfiVIbRSy8L0lnYo/ShK0j1P2oWzRPj2erJVdwVBH9iiRBDrKq1soO JvKGWXVGMvAXA7ONYsPh46QkvthWCVYKSCuR3/mlAzD3nLamO/9F5qpWBsrF0DmPOfWF 5HvlCFDRa0igF7jbX3ucdVGy6yB+cSze4SBDm4OEn3gR4TjVBPhGKrLlfW9q+qvFJf7p wwXmcUEdgzoiyWsK0LvXJ+IPunaNl4cQSZdXGhiLuezsq4GW/QP30cHFHe2uqr1XiDxm IiKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeViz7iN0PZ8jzKLJaFRpzE1HRNDXgEN9Hwo+EJ+zj1SIVNVTPi Xbj5GDj+EbKAWFT+Zx9eV4tDGYJBiyKb/T7oikNnzA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6nYFt7inr9btn90K8pqr5UkXuuvRRWGOSU1bvrCvBdSGO85kOtAyTdVUZj1K2nkGe3E9TPil9P0ZglOvwqllo= X-Received: by 2002:a63:1258:: with SMTP id 24mr17800943pgs.114.1547332621764; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:37:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: sebb Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:36:49 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597] To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 15:42, John Patrick wrote: > > Personally as a consumer/user I wouldn't expect a minor update to bump > the min java version required, I would expect a major version number > bump. > > Also I think all commons projects should be bumped to Java 8 asap, as > those on java 5, 6 or 7 are probably happy with the current versions > and would only be upgrading for bug fixes and security reasons. However, if a commons component updates to Java 8 and then needs a bug fix, all those on Java 7 or below who need the bug fix will be forced to update Java as well as updating the commons component. Is that such a good idea? > Java 8 was released nearly 5 years ago, Java 7 was released 8 years > ago, people complained about Java being slow, now Java has become > rapid it seams the frameworks need to speed up. Huh? If people upgrade to the latest (faster) version of Java, they can still use Commons components that have an earlier minimum version. So I don't see how changing the minimum version of Java for a Commons component helps here. > Just my view after coding Java for 20 years. > > John > > > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > I am OK with updating Commons IO to Java 8 for release 2.7. > > > > Others? > > > > Gary > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Arvind Venugopal > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has to be > > > taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which would be > > > breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this > > > library. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Arvind > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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