I don't understand the logic behind requiring 1.7 support for the 4.2 release. After all, we're not currently using any 1.7 features. I was under the impression that we were all discussing changing for the 5.0 release.
-1 to changing away from 1.6 for the 4.2 release +1 to jumping to 1.8 for the following release -Spencer On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Steve Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > > > You have my support. That sounds like a fair migration plan. Do you have a > goal in mind for when a BioJava 5.0/Java 8 release could take place? > > > > -Steve > > > > *From:* biojava-dev [mailto:biojava-dev-bounces+darnells= > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andreas Prlic > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:59 AM > *To:* Jose Duarte > *Cc:* biojava-dev; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Biojava-dev] Increasing Java version requirement for > BioJava > > > > I hear a strong wish to upgrade to Java 1.8, but also a few voices about > being a bit more conservative. > > > > On the RCSB PDB production servers we are for now still on Java 1.7. We > are also re-distributing BioJava via Java Web Start to users out of which > 1/4 are still on 1.7 as previously commented. As such I can't support an > immediate jump to 1.8. However I propose the following procedure for the > next couple of months: > > > > For the upcoming 4.2 release (scheduled for ~mid February) we migrate to > Java 1.7. After the 4.2 release becomes available, the master branch on > GitHub (i.e. the developmental code base) gets scheduled for the next major > 5.0 release and starts using Java 1.8. > > > > That way the future 5.0 release will be the first stable release using > Java 1.8. However all the active developers who want to start using the > latest Java features will be able to do so in about a month by using the > latest code from git. > > > > Does this procedure find general agreement? > > > > Andreas > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Jose Duarte <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Spencer for the nice summary! > > > > I'm going to give my vote to 1.8, because of all the new features and > because I think we really need to move forward in this one. > > > > I would be in any case ready to compromise in 1.7 if we see that 1.8 will > really cut off a significant amount of users. With the condition that the > next release will then go to 1.8. > > > > The only thing I feel strongly against is staying in 1.6. Whatever we do > we should avoid that. > > > > Jose > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andreas Prlic <[email protected]> wrote: > > Based on some RCSB PDB analytics data, I'd estimate that about 2/3 of all > users are already on 1.8. However there is still a significant number of > users on 1.7 (somewhere around 1/4). > > > > As such my vote is to upgrade to 1.7 for now and move to 1.8 at some point > in the future, when 1.7 usage has declined further. > > > > Andreas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Terry Casstevens <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Spencer, > > I'm the lead developer for the Tassel software, and we use the Biojava > libraries. We've required Java 8 for Tassel since August 2014. If > you change, some users will need to upgrade Java regardless. I > recommend going to Java 8. > > maizegenetics.net/tassel > > Best, > > Terry > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Spencer Bliven > <[email protected]> wrote: > > There has been some informal discussion of increasing the Java version > > requirement for BioJava from the current Java 6 to either 7 or 8. It > would > > be great to hear from the larger BioJava community about whether this > would > > be a welcome change or not. > > > > I will start the discussion by listing what I see as the pros and cons of > > setting each version as the minimum requirement for BioJava. > > > > Java 6: > > --------- > > + Greatest backwards compatibility > > - No updates since Feb 2013* > > - Some dependencies are not compatible, requiring the use of older > versions > > (currently only log4j, but could be others in the future) > > > > Java 7: > > --------- > > + Most popular version currently > > + Some minor language features added > > - No updates since Apr 2015* > > > > Java 8: > > --------- > > + Tons of awesome new programming features, e.g. lambda functions > > + Only version supported by Oracle > > - Not available for many systems > > > > * Note that all versions are backwards compatible, so you can always use > a > > more up-to-date JDK for downstream projects. Running outdated software is > > generally a bad idea, so users are encouraged to use the Java 8 JRE, > > regardless of the minimum BioJava requirement. > > > > > > One thing I would like to get a sense of is how many BioJava users are > still > > using 6 and 7. @emckee2006 mentioned on github that they still have some > > servers on 6. I know that getting Java 8 installed on CentOS is rather > > painful, so probably some users haven't yet updated to 8. > > > > Let me know if I missed anything! > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Spencer > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > biojava-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev > _______________________________________________ > biojava-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev > > > > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Andreas Prlic > RCSB PDB Protein Data Bank > > Technical & Scientific Team Lead > > University of California, San Diego > > > > Editor Software Section > > PLOS Computational Biology > > > > BioJava Project Lead > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > biojava-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev > > > > > > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Andreas Prlic > RCSB PDB Protein Data Bank > > Technical & Scientific Team Lead > > University of California, San Diego > > > > Editor Software Section > > PLOS Computational Biology > > > > BioJava Project Lead > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > biojava-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev >
_______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - [email protected] http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
