Well, depends on what part you are talking of: For Pax Exam i think 1.6 is set for the host part, but i know of some people wishing 1.4 compatibility when it comes to the target part (where to run the test in). With OSGi being very popular on limited devices, i see value in not raising the bar too early. i know Java5 is the current minimum, but would be great to also allow lower versions.
The same issue goes runtime-only projects like Pax Web and Logging. Its always a trade off. For BASE : mmhh.. i really would keep trying to have that at least retrofitted to work with 1.4 JVMs. Breaking that will break all other OPS4J projects used on those limited devices. It sounds strange, i also love to just support the hot shit, but it usually comes with losing customers. Bottomline: It depends on the projects but BASE should be kept to absolute minimum. If its more sophisticated, make it its own project or Swissbox Subproject etc. Just my cts.. Toni On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Harald Wellmann <[email protected] > wrote: > Now that Java 1.7 is current, how much longer are we planning to > support Java 1.5 or even 1.4 in OPS4J? > > All projects using org.ops4j:master:2.0.0 currently inherit the > maven-compiler-plugin with configuration source = target = 1.5. > > But this is not enough to ensure that all OPS4J libs really work on > Java 1.5. For example, Pax Exam uses java.util.ServiceLoader (at least > since 2.0.0, as far as I can tell), which was only introduced in Java > 1.6, so even if we compile 1.5 compatible class files, Pax Exam will > not run on Java 1.5. > > So 1.5 is clearly wrong for Pax Exam, and we should change the POM > (the Parent Exam parent, not the overall master) to 1.6 for the next > release. > > OPS4J Base even uses a retrotranslator to build Java 1.4 compatible > variants of all libs. Is this still required? If so, we should test > it. If not, we should drop it. > > In short, I think we should come up with a deprecation roadmap for > older Java versions in OPS4J, not necessarily a global one, each > project may have different needs. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Harald > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
