I really don’t think there are that many features where we would need JDK specific implementations of something.
The problem is, your definition of “dead” and mine are different. I know very well that there are many users still on JDK 6. Also, IBM [1] still has not announced an end of service date for Java 6, so I am quite certain there ere a number of people using Java 6 there. To be clear, I am very much opposed to raising the minimum JDK version as quickly as you seem to want. Ralph [1] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html On Sep 13, 2014, at 7:03 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should keep it simple. If some version of Java is dead, past > public update EOLs, then it's OK by me to switch _master development_ to a > supported Java version. To me, this means that all master development should > be on Java 7 now. > > Perso, I do not want to support multiple Java versions in one code base, > seems like a headache and hoop jumping. Unless we have a really good > reason... ;-) > > Gary > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
