On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think all that Sebastian is saying is something like "if you can >> create your new, cool API and the only things you really miss from >> Java 6 are @Override on interface implementation methods and >> ServiceLoader, for example, maybe it's worth that tiny bit of extra >> pain to reach that slightly larger audience." We all feel frustrated >> from time to time working in the community setting; I've been there >> myself, but I don't think Seb is just trying to be a killjoy just for >> the hell of it. > > Yes, you might be right on this interpretation. > > As long as there a volunteers for maintaining jexl2 on j5 setting, I > am fine with keeping j5 for it. To be clear, I am not saying we kill > jexl2 today or quit jdk5 support for jexl2. > > But we should not make it a policy to start a new, major version with > the lowest JDK version possible when the actual maintainers would like > to use a current platform - this needs no discussion imho, they should > simply do as they please.
I agree that the developers of a component should do as they [collectively] please. However, in the case of [jexl] it appears that Seb is interested in the development of this component. He may continue to be interested in the development of a v3.x of [jexl]. Now we don't have as clear-cut a case of do-ocracy and henrib just doing what he pleases anymore, because he has to do instead "as near as he can get to what he pleases while still functioning in a consensus-based manner." A possible sequence of events: - henrib proposes that [jexl] include feature X, using feature Y from Java 6, thus justifying this minimum version. Assuming the community doesn't vote down the feature on its own merits, Java 6 it is. - sebb can then come along say, hey, I know we agreed on feature X, but I can put in 4 hours of work or create a new Commons component to reimplement feature Y, and now Java 5 users can also benefit from [jexl] 3! Assuming someone else is willing to do the *actual* work required to keep Java 5 compatibility, are you really going to spend time and energy fighting for interface @Overrides? Obviously there would probably be some point at which Seb in this example would say, sure, I could reimplement feature Y, but it's going to take ten hours, twenty hours. Not worth it; have your Java 6! This is the way I see our community as having to function. Matt > > Cheers > >> >> Matt >> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 5 December 2011 18:10, henrib <hen...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> sebb-2-2 wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> But you don't consider a good (technical) reason the fact that the >>>>> contributor can not/does not want to incur the cost of maintaining a JDK >>>>> 1.5 >>>>> on its dev platforms to be able to contribute to newer versions... >>>> >>>> No, I don't consider that a valid reason on its own. >>> >>> Committing should be fun. If one does not want to support JDK 1.5 he >>> goes away. Henri seems as he does not want and would like to put >>> effort in a more modern environment. In addition, how many people can >>> you attract with a JDK 1.5 version to contribute? For me this is valid >>> reason. >>> >>>>> And no-one is stating that Java 1.5 is not in used in production >>>>> somewhere; >>>>> but IMHO, these are not the ones that will be JEXL3 users, especially >>>>> since >>>>> they have 2.1 (soon). >>>> >>>>> Anyway and beyond the point, my advice to 1.5 users is that before trying >>>>> to >>>>> use "new" versions of libraries, migrating away from an unsupported/EOLed >>>>> platform should be their priority. >>>> >>>> Indeed, ideally everyone would now be using Java 6 and Windows users >>>> should all upgrade to Windows 7 etc. >>>> >>>> But that is a separate issue. >>> >>> No it is not. >>> >>> It seems you ignore my idea on having jexl2 in maintenance mode, but >>> this is actually what MS did with Win XP. Now they don't support it. I >>> ask myself, why do we need to support outdated jdks until all >>> committers are gone away or the library is the outdated people get >>> some fresher stuff (Collections vs Guava)? >>> >>> If Henri is the opinion that people should use jdk6 he should be >>> allowed to create such a version and call it Jexl3. >>> If you want to keep a jdk5 version, you are of course allowed to >>> support that one. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Christian >>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.grobmeier.de >>> https://www.timeandbill.de >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
