Mailing-List: contact user-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Users List" <user@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
 designates 209.85.146.177 as permitted sender)
Message-Id: <3532C8F4-F0F1-4559-96C9-9F7CAE83E985@dslextreme.com>
From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
To: "Commons Users List" <user@commons.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <94C476C03BFF5E42AC3518FDAC9643C4E2BF647C3D@HQMAIL.rocketsoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:53:10 -0700
References: <04B4134B-6D3A-4D36-BEE9-FA2866A24054@dslextreme.com>
 <f2e8eedf0908190724v43f7a0e6x63034a929e0e222b@mail.gmail.com>
 <83AD7810-09C2-4626-BCBA-C9C465C64C99@dslextreme.com>
 <55afdc850908190739n70479fe9t6c761af78b1a1fbb@mail.gmail.com>
 <94C476C03BFF5E42AC3518FDAC9643C4E2BF647C3D@HQMAIL.rocketsoftware.com>


On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Gary Gregory 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 think the point Niall is making is valid. Currently the minimum JDK  
version of 2.0 is 1.4. I would think to start with all we would change  
would be the version variable in the pom and then take advantage of it  
a few places internally. We haven't planned on doing anything that is  
incompatible at this point.

Ralph


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