qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Ending Support for Java 6
Date Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:02:06 GMT
On 7 April 2014 19:30, Fraser Adams <fraser.adams@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> I think that this definitely needs input from the broad community. I can
> see where you're coming from, but my observations of large Enterprises
> (which TBH are often the main consumers of Messaging products) are that
> they are often in a difficult position wrt. keeping up with the times.
> Don't talk to me about IE8 for example!! There's a whole *industry* of
> polyfills because Enterprises won't or can't upgrade.

I dont necessarily think IE8 is a comparable situation to a Java version
change, but I do take your point.

> I don't think that your comment "Those those who 'cant' or dont want to
> upgrade to such 'new' (i.e really quite old now) Java releases are often
> likely to be the same ones that aren't so likely to use the latest Qpid
> releases either" necessarily holds, often things like compiler versions get
> corporately mandated whereas there might be less control exerted on
> libraries. I've got painful memories of being stuck on Java 3 when the
> world had moved to Java 5, this stuff is not as simple as you seem to think.

I agree that there is often more control (and as a result, lack thereof for
the users) exercised over the platform than the things running on it, but I
would also say that my experience has been that the two things drift
together to an extent as time passes, and the controlled platform leads
people to stop upgrading the things running on it as it gets older, even
when they could still do so.

I do realise its not always that simple on the client side, but on the
broker side for example it isnt necessarily that hard, there are ways to
handle that in isolation if really required. Obviously if you rule those
options out you need to have a plan in place to cope with the result of
those decisions (where hoping we are super nice isnt really a plan).

> I'm quite impressed that your own organisation has migrated to Java 7
> I'm *personally* fairly agnostic on this I just think that it's important
> to bear in mind how large Enterprises often operate.

I unfortunately would say I spend too much of my time bearing in mind how
they do hehe. Its certainly getting my own personal consideration, an is
actually one of the main reasons I support the proposal.

I know there are people that wont pick such new stuff up until several
months or years after it is released, at which point I dont really think
its a good thing to see them still able to deploy it on the Java 6 JVM they
should have looked to stop using by then nevermind trying to use it for a
couple further years :)

> (Lack of) what features are causing you the most pain? Just curious
> really.

It isnt necessarily just about features (though there are certainly some
I'd like to be able to rely on, and not necessarily even at the language
level), eventual supportability also comes into it for me. If noone is
supporting those JVMs on the other end, and we dont really have the
bandwidth to do so either, is letting new stuff continue to run on them
when noone is testing/fixing the result really such a good thing?  (Hello
Windows XP, I hear tomorrow is your deathday...please tell your users)

Supporting things far beyond their own EOL date feels a bit like jumping in
beside someone digging themselves into a hole to lend them an extra pair of
hands to speed things up :)

> Rob mentioned "as JMS 2.0 does" in his mail, I'm not at all familiar with
> JMS 2.0, so I'm interested what key things have changed and what new stuff
> it depends on. Is the implication of this that the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
> that you guys are working on will be JMS 2.0 only? I noticed that the
> pom.xml in there specifies Java 7 already - I guess that's your none to
> subtle hint ;->
It is indeed to be a JMS 2.0 client and thus the 1.7 in the pom isnt a hint
but rather a requirement; as Rob mentioned the JMS 2.0 API make use of the
try-with-resources language feature, which is strictly Java7+

(obviously that isnt to say you can't do things like hack the bytecode
after the fact to make it work with Java 6, but...lets not get crazy)

> Hmm you could probably make similar arguments for adopting C++11 - not
> least because Boost version dependencies suck, but there are still a ton of
> people (myself included at the moment) with older systems - though to be
> fair upgrading C++ compilers tends to be harder than upgrading Java
> versions for any given OS version.

Especially if you arent talking about package manager installations. One is
really really easy, is the other? :)

> It's interesting that Proton (well Proton-C at any rate) seems to be
> taking a very different tack where it seems to be actively trying to
> minimise dependencies on anything new and shiny - I'm pretty sure I saw a
> Jira the other day for changing send.c and recv.c because they were C99 and
> broke on Windows builds that needed good old C89 :-D
> Just being a bit Devils' advocate to mix things up a bit, as I say I'm
> personally agnostic :-)
> Frase
> On 07/04/14 17:33, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> I think this makes sense. We waited too long to drop support for Java 5,
>> lets not repeat that with 6. Beginning to depend on Java 7 after three
>> years doesnt seem unreasonable to me.
>> Those those who 'cant' or dont want to upgrade to such 'new' (i.e really
>> quite old now) Java releases are often likely to be the same ones that
>> aren't so likely to use the latest Qpid releases either.
>> Robbie
>> On 7 April 2014 13:17, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  All,
>>> now that Java 8 has been released, and Java 6 has been officially EOLd
>>> for
>>> well over a year, I'd like to propose that we make 0.28 the last release
>>> for which we officially support Java 6.  As a library provider I'm aware
>>> that we need to strive to make our libraries as widely adoptable as
>>> possible, but not adopting Java 7 also holds us back from implementing
>>> functionality that requires features of later releases (as JMS 2.0 does).
>>> Java 7 was released in 2011 and is itself scheduled to be EOLd next year.
>>> If we do later find critical defects that affect the 0.28 release we
>>> should
>>> consider back-patching to a Java 6 release based on 0.28, however I don't
>>> think requiring that all new functionality releases require the adoption
>>> a
>>> version of Java that Oracle supports to be an undue burden.
>>> -- Rob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message