commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Date Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:46:38 GMT
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Gary
Gregory<GGregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
>> To: Commons Users List
>> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely have
>> to
>> > be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming
>> right
>> > now.
>>
>> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes  that would have
>> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
>> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
>> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then creating a
>> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the decision
>> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
>
> That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and v2 co-exist in a
Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be renamed. So if that is what we want, let
us just bite the bullet and rename now.

I don't really get why you say it complicates matters as being
backwards compatible means that you don't need v1 & v2 to co-exist.

Niall

> Gary
>
>>
>> Niall
>>
>> > The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
>> > correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since
>> some
>> > of the code actually required that version to run.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> > On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:If
>> >
>> >> Are they going to change the package name?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph
>> Goers<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4.  VFS 2.0 has
>> not
>> >>> been
>> >>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version
>> >>> JDK
>> >>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however
>> >>> before
>> >>> this change is made.  So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ralph
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-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: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message