incubator-river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Hobbs <tvho...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] drop JDK 5 compatibility
Date Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:05:23 GMT
-1

My reasons are not based on technical merit.  We have a vocal and
helpful user who explicitly states that dropping JDK 1.5 means the end
for him and I think that we must take his situation into
consideration.  As far as I can see there is no "If only we stipulated
JDK 1.6 then we could..." requirement so I seriously question the
value of doing so.

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> So, although consider my opinion of 'low impact', I agree with Peter
> that there need to be a substantial case for platform-like code to
> abandon a previous Java version. IMHO, Java 5 has a LOT of features
> that most platforms can leverage to their advantage, Java 6 much less
> so...
>
> My primary project just recently up'ed the requirement to Java 6, due
> to a nasty bug in the Generics compiler in Java 5, for which there is
> never going to be a fix. If/when there are such issues in River, then
> sure...
>
> As for 'recommended version', it is quite important that River's core
> team and test set up are using JDK 1.5 in their toolkits, as it
> otherwise quickly 'leaks' 1.6 methods into the codebase. Also, if the
> test or build tools require 1.6, then I think that is totally
> acceptable as well.
>
>
> Cheers and keep up the good momentum....
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:
>> -1 Peter Firmstone.
>>
>> I could vote +1 to dropping support (us fixing something to work around a
>> Java 5 only bug) due to the resources of our small team, leaving the door
>> open to the community to contribute patches, but not compatibility I'm
>> afraid, I just haven't seen a good reason why we need to make River
>> incompatible with Java 5.
>>
>> Is there a feature we need in the platform that requires Java 6?
>>
>> Are we adding a feature to a proxy that requires Java 6?
>>
>> I don't think a service implementation (server side) is a good enough reason
>> to drop compatibility.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that we can't produce a service implementation that does
>> require Java 6 as a minimum and release it as a separate concern, just that
>> it's unreasonable to expect everything else to be dragged along with it.
>>
>> Note: The QA Test suite requires JDK1.6 to compile, because some of it's
>> tests depend on internal Sun Java platform implementation details.  The QA
>> harness is compatible with earlier versions of Java.  The jtreg tests
>> require Java 5, due to some tests relying on internal Sun Java platform
>> implementation details.
>>
>> I recommend people use Java 6 if they can, but not everyone is that lucky.
>>
>> I understand the reasons for making such decisions, but I think we need to
>> further investigate breaking the codebase up into smaller easier to maintain
>> components, then determining the requirements of each before decisions like
>> this are made.  We have too much coupling between implementation and
>> platform at present.
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>

Mime
View raw message