Mailing-List: contact dev-help@clerezza.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: me@farewellutopia.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEWfVJ=b9p1Ek3_z_7pLhOk0iy-Y4pxAdrNxt8rOvRpmN05iTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALvhUEXr9VGyx-awdPoS-R-zFNbxjc4sPbdjQCBt+=Axx1eXrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA7LAO3qeNArWXtE0Q34-Fd2cwnZBd1hgo4jUAaojw-bq-AghQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJ=b9p1Ek3_z_7pLhOk0iy-Y4pxAdrNxt8rOvRpmN05iTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:17:27 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CALvhUEV3D2SY0MMFvQDwS4bazoru1MKJNtM-3VpH9oEbBOA3mw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Staying java 6 compatible?
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Reto_Bachmann=2DGm=FCr?= <reto@apache.org>
To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04016b057bd05204d8489a72

--f46d04016b057bd05204d8489a72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Rupert Westenthaler
> <rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...Apache Stanbol is compatible to Java 6 something that would no longer
> > be possible if Clerezza would require Java 7. I would prefer to stay
> > with Java 6 unless their is a really important reason...
>
> +1, IMO it's a bit early to abandon Java 6 and I don't see compelling
> reasons.
>

I didn't find the reasons for Stanbol to want to remain java 6 compatible.
Java 7 has been there for almost two years and Java 8 will soon be released.

There isn't just the ForkJoinPool but several improvement. An example is
the file stuff where we could drop the constant polling for changes in the
BundleDevTool.

The change isn't urgent for me. Just keeping it java 6 compatible is an
additional effort and I'm not sure what justifies this.

Cheers,
Reto

--f46d04016b057bd05204d8489a72--