Proper Java8 support could give us quite an opportunity here. Marking our interfaces as functional (not required of course) and designing our API to be "lambda-friendly"
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:24 AM Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > THAT said, I would be OK with going through all the code, removing all the > stuff marked deprecated, update to JDK8, and call it 3.0. :-) It’s just > a version number. We can always do a 4.0 if needed/wanted. > > Dan > > > > > On Jan 29, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jan 29, 2016, at 3:21 AM, Christian Müller < > christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Yes, it's a minor release. And regarding to [1]: > >> > >> MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible > manner > >> > >> And that's not the case, if you have to upgrade your JRE. > > > > How is it not backwards compatible? All of your source that you used > with Camel 2.16 should compile and run fine with 2.18. You need to update > your JDK, but the source and API’s and everything are still completely > compatible. From an API standpoint, compatible. And the SemVer thing is > all about the API’s. > > > > > > But like was already said, I don’t think we’ve EVER done a Camel release > that didn’t upgrade a dependency in an underlying library that wasn’t > compatible. We’ve dropped support for versions of things like jetty and > older versions of sl4fj and older versions of Karaf and such as well. > > > > Dan > > > > > > > >> > >> [1] http://semver.org/ > >> > >> Best, > >> Christian > >> ----------------- > >> > >> Software Integration Specialist > >> > >> Apache Member > >> V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer > >> Apache Incubator PMC Member > >> > >> https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642 > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> 2.16 -> 2.17 is not a patch release, it’s a minor release with new > >>> features and dependency updates and such. > >>> > >>> 2.16.1 -> 2.16.2 is a patch release. > >>> > >>> I would agree no changes in JDK requirements on a patch release. A > minor > >>> release is different. > >>> > >>> Dan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 5:52 PM, Christian Müller < > >>> christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm with James (even we did it otherwise in the past). A patch release > >>>> shouldn't require you to upgrade your JRE. > >>>> > >>>> Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7 > >>>> Camel 3.0 = Java 1.8 > >>>> > >>>> May it forces us to work on Camel 3.0 ;-) > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Christian > >>>> ----------------- > >>>> > >>>> Software Integration Specialist > >>>> > >>>> Apache Member > >>>> V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer > >>>> Apache Incubator PMC Member > >>>> > >>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642 > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM, James Carman > >>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >>>>>> I would rather us bump the major version number if we're going to > start > >>>>>> requiring users to use Java8. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Yeah that was also my first thought. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to keep Camel 2.17 as-is on Java 1.7. Then if 2.18 is > >>>>> Java 1.8+ then its much easier to remember as the numbers are > aligned. > >>>>> > >>>>> Camel 2.17 = Java 1.7 > >>>>> Camel 2.18 = Java 1.8 > >>>>> > >>>>> We can always release Camel 2.17 sooner, its been a while since 2.16, > >>>>> so maybe aim for a release in next month? > >>>>> > >>>>> A reason to keep it on 1.7 is also it would otherwise throw some > Camel > >>>>> end users under the bus anticipating they can use it on Java 1.7. > Then > >>>>> we can announce Camel 2.17 would be the last release with Java 1.7 - > >>>>> even ahead of time. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For master (targeting 2.17), I see we’re still setup for Java7. > >>> Would > >>>>>>> it make sense to move to requiring Java8? We can certainly start > >>> taking > >>>>>>> advantage of the new things in Java8, but there are also > dependencies > >>>>> (like > >>>>>>> Jetty) that now require Java8 and more and more of them will be > >>>>> requiring > >>>>>>> that. (example: CXF 3.2 will be Java8 only as well) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It sometimes makes back merging fixes to 2.16/2.15 tricky if you > use > >>>>> Java8 > >>>>>>> features, but that’s going to be a problem eventually anyway. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Daniel Kulp > >>>>>>> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > >>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Claus Ibsen > >>>>> ----------------- > >>>>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > >>>>> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 > >>>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daniel Kulp > >>> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > >>> > >>> > > > > -- > > Daniel Kulp > > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > >
