incubator-odf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Tilton <noahktil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ODF Command Line Tools -- Request for community feedback
Date Tue, 29 May 2012 16:31:21 GMT
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)
<rony@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 29.05.2012 11:28, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) <rony@apache.org
>>> wrote:
>>> If possible at all, the base line support should be Java 1.4 as long as
>>> possible as there are still
>>> quite a few Java deployments at that level (also 1.5) in the market
>>> despite Sun/Oracle putting the
>>> EOL death spell on Java 1.4 and 1.5

Confronted with a similar debate, Jruby made the decision a while back
that newer features of the Java language were more
important than helping slow-to-upgrade IT departments standardize
versions.[1]  Even if we ignore Oracle's proclamations, Java 1.4 just
had its 10-year anniversary in February[2].  As others have pointed
out, that's stretching it.  Even groovy stopped supporting 1.4 a
couple of major releases ago.[3]

>> With OpenJDK available for 1.6 and 1.7, JDK 1.4 and 1.5 are dead as a dodo.
>> Who will maintain legacy, non-open code?
>>
>> Plus, Java has good backwards compatibility, I have had no problem running
>> apps there were created in the days of Java 1.4 with the latest OpenJDK
>> 1.7... but that's just my limited experience on the matter....
> Yes, the backward compatibility is great. And it is also great that you (and many developers)
are
> able to take advantage of the latest JDKs (open or closed for that matter).
>
> The problem is the other way round: shops that have no newer versions than 1.4 or 1.5
> deployed/available to them are not able to take advantage of Java class|{es| libraries}
that got
> compiled with class file structures higher than their version. Their jvm would just bomb
and inhibit
> the execution/usage of Java classes that are not at their (or lower) level. Therefore,
as long as it
> is feasible for the creators of Java class libraries to create the classfiles to be deployable
on
> 1.4 or 1.5, then they should do so in order to maximize the deployability of their endeavors.

I'm not sure the debate over legacy support is warranted -- people
using older JVMs always have the choice of running a second newer
instance of the JVM and linking up the two via IPC or one of several
other methods.  From my (developer) point of view, since they prefer
not to upgrade, it seems fair that they should have the burden of
figuring it out.

-- 
Noah


[1] http://ruby.11.n6.nabble.com/jruby-dev-Java-version-td3456810.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history
[3] http://groovy.codehaus.org/Tutorial+1+-+Getting+started

Mime
View raw message