Dan, I like that!
/je
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 12:30 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
