On 13 September 2014 19:03, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
> For example, we could plan to upgrade our minimum version whenever Premier > support ends (Java 6 until Dec 2015, Java 7 until July 2019, etc). > Good idea. > I also wouldn’t want to jump from version 2.x to 3.x just because we > changed the minimum JDK version. At the same time I think it should be > clear to users that they can’t just upgrade from 2.2 to 2.3. That may mean > we would want to use 4 digit version numbers and only go to 2.1.0.0 when we > switch the JDK. > I don't understand this four digit version number thing. Could you elaborate? > I should also state that I have no problem if some of our add-on modules > require a different JDK version. I also think we could do things like make > things like Date formatting be pluggable so that if you are running on JDK > 8 you can use it instead of whatever core normally provides. > Could we do something like Spring and have some annotations for Java7 and Java8 to mark classes that require those versions of Java? I'd have to look into it more to see how they compile everything this way, but it seems like a neat idea. -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
