On 5 December 2011 09:34, henrib <hen...@apache.org> wrote: > Sebb; > Lets not return the pb; Java6 is not downwards compatible with Java 1.5.
Of course not; that's the point. > There is a cost in maintaining 2 JDKs on 3 boxes, a cost in remembering that > @Override can not be used on interfaces implementation, that addAll is not > there, a cost in switching environments before using mvn and publishing, > etc. All these "little" things that accumulated make it a pain in the a.... That is partly why we have CI systems such as Continuum. > But, again, the main point is just that it is not useful to maintain Java > 1.5 which is eol; JEXL3 is a new project API intended for active/new > projects and thus will be used and deployed on Java 6. Besides, there is > always JEXL 2.1 - soon to be released I hope - which will cover the Java 1.5 > aficionados needs. > > Why do you want to impose an unnecessary compatibility ? Why do you wish to impose a potentially unnecessary compatibily? > Is there anything > in the Commons charter that states that obsolete platforms need to be > deployment targets? No, but Commons does strive for compatibility as far as possible. > And IMHO, it is a disservice to the Java community to > let them run new APIs on Java 1.5 when Java7 is out. Irrelevant; they can still run any Commons component that targets 1.4 or 1.5 on Java7. > Finally, do you really need to challenge any change or evolution even when > not related to stability or quality ? No, but I think it's necessary to explain why the change in JVM is necessary for end-users. The change between 1.4 and 1.5 was much easier to justify, as there were huge improvements; not least in the memory model. There are of course improvements in Java 1.6, but they are not of the same order. So unless there is a feature in Java 1.6 that is essential for JEXL 3, then I don't think it's necessary to make Java 1.6 a requirement. > Will we have to call votes for everything and anything ? No, but I think it's necessary to justify the change in JVM. I have yet to see a technical argument why 1.6 is necessary. > And then we wonder why people seem to be fed up; > re-read Simo, JamesC, GaryG recent message in the "[JEXL] Jexl 2.1" > thread... Also see response from Joerg Schaible. In Commons particularly, it is important to strive for compatibilty. > Regards, > Henrib > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/Re-jira-Created-JEXL-123-Redesign-API-for-stability-tp4157779p4159821.html > Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
