FWIW, I have been planning on starting work on vfs3 when I finish up with some other stuff. VFS3 will require Java 7 as Java 7 provides virtual file support, so vfs3 will be slimmed down to just provide implementations.
Ralph On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:51 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 December 2011 16:46, henrib <hen...@apache.org> wrote: > > You summed it up pretty well; > > Can we participate in moving forward - Java6 is not really the bleeding > > edge... - or are we bound to remain on obsolete platforms with Commons ? > > That is not a question I can answer, because it's not a simple > dichotomy (if that's the correct word). > > It's not my view that all Commons components have to remain on 1.5 > until no-one else is using that release. > Nor is it my view that all Commons components should immediately be > able to switch to 1.6. > > My view is that while there is still a need for software to be able to > run on Java 1.5, we should not insist on requiring a minimum of > 1.6.*unless* there is good technical reason for doing so. > > I've yet to see that argument put forward; nor has anyone produced > evidence that Java 1.5 is not still being used in production across > the user base. > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Can-the-next-version-major-version-of-a-project-require-Java6-i-e-drop-Java-1-5-tp4160635p4161262.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 > >
