Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hey All.
Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something shiny
and new,
Please. Can we stop using that kind of father-ish formulation? That's not
the first time.
It makes it sound like meeh, it happened again. Those /developers/ kids
not getting what business is about just did it again
I do find that the current 1.5 based Maven is more than sufficient
for our needs.
I lot of responses about the upgrade are normally around the just upgrade
the java (assuming that I am running under tomcat of similar [if only it
was so simple as that!]).
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
been
extended* by a year!
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd quite a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is
running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Twice in a row. What's the issue with products that eases your life when it
comes to upgrading things?
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I'm not sure I perfectly see your point. We also use aix and jenkins and
Maven, and it's possible as anywhere else to install many JDK versions on
an IBM/aix server. You're then not forced to use the same JDK version for
your builds and for running your jenkins server.
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and are
unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure
would
be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
I'm thinking that'd certainly be averaged with versions bigger than JDK5
also not reporting.
So, please do not cut us off from future updates.
Thanks,
-Chris
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Manfred Moser manf...@mosabuam.com
wrote:
Totally agree... if people really need to build for older Java runtimes
they still can.. but if Oracle thinks they dont want to support JDK
1.7
without getting paid why would the Maven project do it ;-)
For now 1.6 seems just fine and I would even say a jump to 1.7 in the
next
year or three (;-)) would be reasonable..
manfred
+1, bump to JDK6 minimum for Maven.
2013/2/6 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to
co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better
(that
way
we catch up with the model version ;-)
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that
(again).
Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013.
Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ?
NOTE: That will probably need a vote. So depending on how the
thread
move, I will start a vote (or not).
Thanks
--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
javascript:;
For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-h...@maven.apache.orgjavascript:;
--
Baptiste Batmat MATHUS - http://batmat.net
Sauvez un arbre,
Mangez un castor ! nbsp;!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that (again). Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013. Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ? Don't fully understand the question. Do you mean using 1.6 to compile maven ? or 1.6 to run maven ? or 1.6 as default version for maven-compiler-plugin ? -- Nicolas Delsaux - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
On Thursday, 7 February 2013, Nicolas Delsaux wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.orgjavascript:; wrote: Hi, As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that (again). Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013. Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ? Don't fully understand the question. Do you mean using 1.6 to compile maven ? or 1.6 to run maven ? or This vote is for both of the above 1.6 as default version for maven-compiler-plugin ? Well we stated previously that once a version of maven-compiler-plugin *requires* 1.6 to run (though will keep forking down to compile with older javac via toolchains support) that we'd change the default target and source to 1.6, so I suspect that vote would follow soonish after -- Nicolas Delsaux - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org javascript:;
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
2013/2/7 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com: On Thursday, 7 February 2013, Nicolas Delsaux wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.orgjavascript:; wrote: Hi, As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that (again). Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013. Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ? Don't fully understand the question. Do you mean using 1.6 to compile maven ? or 1.6 to run maven ? or This vote is for both of the above Read my first email, it's not a vote. I just wanted to hear opinions before start a vote or not. BTW due to various responses I won't :-). 1.6 as default version for maven-compiler-plugin ? Well we stated previously that once a version of maven-compiler-plugin *requires* 1.6 to run (though will keep forking down to compile with older javac via toolchains support) that we'd change the default target and source to 1.6, so I suspect that vote would follow soonish after -- Nicolas Delsaux - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org javascript:; -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
Sent from my iPhone
On 07/02/2013, at 6:59 PM, Baptiste MATHUS m...@batmat.net wrote:
Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hey All.
Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something shiny
and new,
Please. Can we stop using that kind of father-ish formulation? That's not
the first time.
It makes it sound like meeh, it happened again. Those /developers/ kids
not getting what business is about just did it again
I do find that the current 1.5 based Maven is more than sufficient
for our needs.
I lot of responses about the upgrade are normally around the just upgrade
the java (assuming that I am running under tomcat of similar [if only it
was so simple as that!]).
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
been
extended* by a year!
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd quite a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is
running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Twice in a row. What's the issue with products that eases your life when it
comes to upgrading things?
Not at all. It's a matter of scale and support.
We have one client who has 3,500 instances of WAS running and no tomcat.
We are not going to retrain the (thousands) of support staff (globally) to
support a new product easily (or cheaply), especially when you generally have
multiple different buckets of money for dev, support maint and BAU.
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I'm not sure I perfectly see your point. We also use aix and jenkins and
Maven, and it's possible as anywhere else to install many JDK versions on
an IBM/aix server. You're then not forced to use the same JDK version for
your builds and for running your jenkins server.
That may work in some cases. Agreed. But perhaps not all. Thinking ESB and BPM
builds here; I'll need to think about that one.
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and are
unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure
would
be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
I'm thinking that'd certainly be averaged with versions bigger than JDK5
also not reporting.
So, please do not cut us off from future updates.
Thanks,
-Chris
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Manfred Moser manf...@mosabuam.com
wrote:
Totally agree... if people really need to build for older Java runtimes
they still can.. but if Oracle thinks they dont want to support JDK
1.7
without getting paid why would the Maven project do it ;-)
For now 1.6 seems just fine and I would even say a jump to 1.7 in the
next
year or three (;-)) would be reasonable..
manfred
+1, bump to JDK6 minimum for Maven.
2013/2/6 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to
co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better
(that
way
we catch up with the model version ;-)
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that
(again).
Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013.
Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ?
NOTE: That will probably need a vote. So depending on how the
thread
move, I will start a vote (or not).
Thanks
--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
javascript:;
For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-h...@maven.apache.orgjavascript:;
--
Baptiste Batmat MATHUS - http://batmat.net
Sauvez un arbre,
Mangez un castor ! nbsp;!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[VOTE] Maven Pmd Plugin 3.0 (take 2)
Hi, I'd like to release Maven Pmd Plugin 3.0. Note this version is based on PMD 5.0.2 (reason for the version bump). We fixed 18 issues: https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truejqlQuery=project+%3D+MPMD+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%223.0%22+AND+status+%3D+Closed+ORDER+BY+priority+DESCmode=hide NOTE: this version use PMD 5.0.2 which is not backwards compatible with PMD 4.x (see more details here http://pmd.sourceforge.net/pmd-5.0.2/) Staging repository: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-216/ Source release: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-216/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-pmd-plugin/3.0/maven-pmd-plugin-3.0-source-release.zip Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/plugins-archives/maven-pmd-plugin-3.0/ Vote open for 72H [+1] [0] [-1] Thanks -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Maven Wagon 2.4
+1 I missed to say website available here: http://maven.apache.org/wagon-archives/wagon-LATEST/ 2013/2/5 Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org: Hi, I'd like to release Wagon 2.4. We fixed 5 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10335version=18697 Staging repository: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-199/ Source release: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-199/org/apache/maven/wagon/wagon/2.4/wagon-2.4-source-release.zip Vote open for 72H [+1] [0] [-1] Thanks -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
- Original Message - From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:23:39 AM Subject: Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6? That's easy to answer for some people. There is no working 1.5 JVM for people that have to work in pure FOSS environment. OpenJDK started its existence from 1.6. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team Build systems are pretty late in the chain. We should still be able to build on systems which are 2+ years old. Is there a technical reason to restrict this or is it just that we don't actively support it anymore (not doing IT, etc)? As comparison: we still supported 1.4 and older until not that far ago ;) LieGrue, strub From: Baptiste MATHUS m...@batmat.net To: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:31 PM Subject: Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum +1, bump to JDK6 minimum for Maven. 2013/2/6 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better (that way we catch up with the model version ;-) On Wednesday, 6 February 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote: Hi, As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that (again). Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013. Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ? NOTE: That will probably need a vote. So depending on how the thread move, I will start a vote (or not). Thanks -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.orgjavascript:; -- Baptiste Batmat MATHUS - http://batmat.net Sauvez un arbre, Mangez un castor ! nbsp;! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:00, Baptiste MATHUS m...@batmat.net wrote:
Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hey All.
Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something shiny
and new,
Please. Can we stop using that kind of father-ish formulation? That's not
the first time.
It makes it sound like meeh, it happened again. Those /developers/ kids
not getting what business is about just did it again
+1
G
I do find that the current 1.5 based Maven is more than sufficient
for our needs.
I lot of responses about the upgrade are normally around the just upgrade
the java (assuming that I am running under tomcat of similar [if only it
was so simple as that!]).
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
been
extended* by a year!
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd quite a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is
running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Twice in a row. What's the issue with products that eases your life when it
comes to upgrading things?
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I'm not sure I perfectly see your point. We also use aix and jenkins and
Maven, and it's possible as anywhere else to install many JDK versions on
an IBM/aix server. You're then not forced to use the same JDK version for
your builds and for running your jenkins server.
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and are
unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure
would
be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
I'm thinking that'd certainly be averaged with versions bigger than JDK5
also not reporting.
So, please do not cut us off from future updates.
Thanks,
-Chris
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Manfred Moser manf...@mosabuam.com
wrote:
Totally agree... if people really need to build for older Java runtimes
they still can.. but if Oracle thinks they dont want to support JDK
1.7
without getting paid why would the Maven project do it ;-)
For now 1.6 seems just fine and I would even say a jump to 1.7 in the
next
year or three (;-)) would be reasonable..
manfred
+1, bump to JDK6 minimum for Maven.
2013/2/6 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
I think we should at least have a minor version bump on core to
co-incide... Though I think calling it maven 4.0 might be better
(that
way
we catch up with the model version ;-)
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
As we are now in 2013, it's probably time to think about that
(again).
Reading [1], even 1.6 won't be anymore updated after feb 2013.
Can we say we are safe to go to 1.6 as minimum required ?
NOTE: That will probably need a vote. So depending on how the
thread
move, I will start a vote (or not).
Thanks
--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
javascript:;
For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-h...@maven.apache.orgjavascript:;
--
Baptiste Batmat MATHUS - http://batmat.net
Sauvez un arbre,
Mangez un castor ! nbsp;!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
On 7 February 2013 08:58, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 07/02/2013, at 6:59 PM, Baptiste MATHUS m...@batmat.net wrote:
Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hey All.
Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something
shiny
and new,
Please. Can we stop using that kind of father-ish formulation? That's not
the first time.
It makes it sound like meeh, it happened again. Those /developers/ kids
not getting what business is about just did it again
I do find that the current 1.5 based Maven is more than sufficient
for our needs.
I lot of responses about the upgrade are normally around the just
upgrade
the java (assuming that I am running under tomcat of similar [if only
it
was so simple as that!]).
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
been
extended* by a year!
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd
quite a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
Can you get a 1.6+ JRE on there? In other words, use 1.6 or 1.7 to run
Maven and use toolchains to fork down to the 1.5 JDK for compiling and
running tests.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is
running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Twice in a row. What's the issue with products that eases your life when
it
comes to upgrading things?
Not at all. It's a matter of scale and support.
We have one client who has 3,500 instances of WAS running and no tomcat.
We are not going to retrain the (thousands) of support staff (globally) to
support a new product easily (or cheaply), especially when you generally
have multiple different buckets of money for dev, support maint and BAU.
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I'm not sure I perfectly see your point. We also use aix and jenkins and
Maven, and it's possible as anywhere else to install many JDK versions on
an IBM/aix server. You're then not forced to use the same JDK version for
your builds and for running your jenkins server.
That may work in some cases. Agreed. But perhaps not all. Thinking ESB and
BPM builds here; I'll need to think about that one.
Sounds like either defects in Toolchains or the plugins used for those
builds do not understand toolchains.
Long term we need to get those issues resolved, because like it or not, at
*some stage* we need to move off of 1.5 and onwards to 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8.
I am against moving up just because. However I am all in favour of moving
up because XYZ.
For me invalid reasons to move to as a runtime requirement 1.6 are things
like:
* I cannot get a 1.5 JDK on my chosen development machine = configure
animal-sniffer
* There is a compiler bug in generics that means that some of the generics
I want to introduce into Maven's APIs will not compile on JDK 1.5 = that
is a valid reason to require 1.6 as a build maven requirement, but
animal-sniffer can let us keep 1.5 as a run-time requirement.
Valid reasons to move to 1.6 are things like:
* This 3rd party dependency we use has a bug that needs fixing, they have
fixed it in version V.W but that artifact is using 1.6 bytecode so we
either keep the bug or upgrade the dependency and consequently upgrade the
minimum required JVM to run Maven.
* There is a big feature that I want to implement and it will be 10 times
easier to write and maintain with the language features in 1.6
My point is I am 100% fine with us upping the requirement to 1.6 or 1.7. I
just want a *good* reason... doesn't have to be a *big* reason... just a
good one.
-STephen
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and are
unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure
would
be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
I'm thinking that'd certainly be averaged with versions bigger than JDK5
also not reporting.
So, please do not cut us off from future updates.
Thanks,
-Chris
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Manfred Moser manf...@mosabuam.com
wrote:
Totally agree... if people really need to build for older Java runtimes
they still can.. but if Oracle thinks
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
+1 on Stephen's reasons
Jeff
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 February 2013 08:58, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 07/02/2013, at 6:59 PM, Baptiste MATHUS m...@batmat.net wrote:
Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hey All.
Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something
shiny
and new,
Please. Can we stop using that kind of father-ish formulation? That's
not
the first time.
It makes it sound like meeh, it happened again. Those /developers/
kids
not getting what business is about just did it again
I do find that the current 1.5 based Maven is more than sufficient
for our needs.
I lot of responses about the upgrade are normally around the just
upgrade
the java (assuming that I am running under tomcat of similar [if only
it
was so simple as that!]).
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
been
extended* by a year!
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd
quite a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
Can you get a 1.6+ JRE on there? In other words, use 1.6 or 1.7 to run
Maven and use toolchains to fork down to the 1.5 JDK for compiling and
running tests.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is
running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Twice in a row. What's the issue with products that eases your life
when
it
comes to upgrading things?
Not at all. It's a matter of scale and support.
We have one client who has 3,500 instances of WAS running and no tomcat.
We are not going to retrain the (thousands) of support staff (globally)
to
support a new product easily (or cheaply), especially when you generally
have multiple different buckets of money for dev, support maint and BAU.
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I
suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of
us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I'm not sure I perfectly see your point. We also use aix and jenkins
and
Maven, and it's possible as anywhere else to install many JDK versions
on
an IBM/aix server. You're then not forced to use the same JDK version
for
your builds and for running your jenkins server.
That may work in some cases. Agreed. But perhaps not all. Thinking ESB
and
BPM builds here; I'll need to think about that one.
Sounds like either defects in Toolchains or the plugins used for those
builds do not understand toolchains.
Long term we need to get those issues resolved, because like it or not, at
*some stage* we need to move off of 1.5 and onwards to 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8.
I am against moving up just because. However I am all in favour of moving
up because XYZ.
For me invalid reasons to move to as a runtime requirement 1.6 are things
like:
* I cannot get a 1.5 JDK on my chosen development machine = configure
animal-sniffer
* There is a compiler bug in generics that means that some of the generics
I want to introduce into Maven's APIs will not compile on JDK 1.5 = that
is a valid reason to require 1.6 as a build maven requirement, but
animal-sniffer can let us keep 1.5 as a run-time requirement.
Valid reasons to move to 1.6 are things like:
* This 3rd party dependency we use has a bug that needs fixing, they have
fixed it in version V.W but that artifact is using 1.6 bytecode so we
either keep the bug or upgrade the dependency and consequently upgrade the
minimum required JVM to run Maven.
* There is a big feature that I want to implement and it will be 10 times
easier to write and maintain with the language features in 1.6
My point is I am 100% fine with us upping the requirement to 1.6 or 1.7. I
just want a *good* reason... doesn't have to be a *big* reason... just a
good one.
-STephen
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and
are
unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure
would
be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
I'm thinking that'd certainly be averaged with versions bigger than
JDK5
also not reporting.
So, please do not cut
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just been
extended* by a year!
You know that Jenkins is looking like going Java 1.6+ in the core, right?
And I suspect virtually all plugins are getting compiled against 1.6 these
days. I know mine are.
Are you saying that AIX 5.3 has no 1.6 JDK, or that WAS 6.1 doesn't work on
a 1.6 JDK (which would be... terrifying) ?
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd quite a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and are
unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure would
be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
So, please do not cut us off from future updates.
I think what irritates developers is this sort of call is parsed as,
effectively, please chain yourselves, corporate-style, to something
totally obsolescent because some dinosaur refuses to upgrade. Whilst that
is the kind of thing you just have to suck up in a $dayjob - because
there's money flowing (I bet IBM take hefty fee for this support) - in OSS
where it's often being done 'for fun' rather than 'for money'', what's the
incentive? They're simply not going to care terribly much, no matter how
many WAS instances you happen to have. For many people it's *all about* the
shiny and new.
It's not like the old versions are going away. e.g: If you were stuck on a
1.4 JVM, Maven 2.0.11 is still there for download. Jenkins has a LTS
edition, and commercial support providers. I'm sure Maven does too. If
you're stuck in an environment where you can only run an 8-year-old JVM,
you might want to see if you can buy a support contract to fix any bugs
that are in your old editions.
Alternatively, look upon it as OSS doing you a big favour. As your platform
becomes no longer supported, you should have a much easier time building
the business case for moving on to something more appropriate for 2013. ;-)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Maven Wagon 2.4
+1 Dan On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I'd like to release Wagon 2.4. We fixed 5 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10335version=18697 Staging repository: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-199/ Source release: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-199/org/apache/maven/wagon/wagon/2.4/wagon-2.4-source-release.zip Vote open for 72H [+1] [0] [-1] Thanks -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
I must say i am rather luke-warm about *ever* making 1.6 minimum. The few interesting things (functionally) that happened in 1.6 are well covered with reflection, and I'd be tempted to just wait until we can do 1.7 base ;) As for being able to support multiple versions, I generally make different accounts (release15, release16 and release17) that I permanenty use for releases for the different targets, and I just su to the appropriate account. The debs for different versions are safely tucked away ;) Kristian
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
So... Make it Java 7! Gary On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:12, Kristian Rosenvold kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com wrote: I must say i am rather luke-warm about *ever* making 1.6 minimum. The few interesting things (functionally) that happened in 1.6 are well covered with reflection, and I'd be tempted to just wait until we can do 1.7 base ;) As for being able to support multiple versions, I generally make different accounts (release15, release16 and release17) that I permanenty use for releases for the different targets, and I just su to the appropriate account. The debs for different versions are safely tucked away ;) Kristian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Fast or exact ?
I think I'd like to have the choice, i.e. I'd like an option for that. Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2013 schrieb Kristian Rosenvold : A lot of you seemed to have realized that the latest version of war and assembly have chosen the fast option over the compact option; and you actually seem to like it ;) https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-639 has been filed and fixed which will revert the behaviour back to slow for both war and assembly, So what do you think ? Kristian
Re: Fast or exact ?
Ok, just read it - it /is/ an option. That's all I care about ;). Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2013 schrieb Andreas Gudian : I think I'd like to have the choice, i.e. I'd like an option for that. Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2013 schrieb Kristian Rosenvold : A lot of you seemed to have realized that the latest version of war and assembly have chosen the fast option over the compact option; and you actually seem to like it ;) https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-639 has been filed and fixed which will revert the behaviour back to slow for both war and assembly, So what do you think ? Kristian
Re: [VOTE] Maven Pmd Plugin 3.0 (take 2)
+1 (non-binding) tested with two multi-module projects (no new features tested and I had no violations before anyway :-)). Regards Mirko On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I'd like to release Maven Pmd Plugin 3.0. Note this version is based on PMD 5.0.2 (reason for the version bump). We fixed 18 issues: https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truejqlQuery=project+%3D+MPMD+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%223.0%22+AND+status+%3D+Closed+ORDER+BY+priority+DESCmode=hide NOTE: this version use PMD 5.0.2 which is not backwards compatible with PMD 4.x (see more details here http://pmd.sourceforge.net/pmd-5.0.2/) Staging repository: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-216/ Source release: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-216/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-pmd-plugin/3.0/maven-pmd-plugin-3.0-source-release.zip Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/plugins-archives/maven-pmd-plugin-3.0/ Vote open for 72H [+1] [0] [-1] Thanks -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
Hello,
I agree with Nigel here, those who need to use an outdated version of the
JDK now have to use an outdated version of Maven as well. Testing stuff
with different JDK versions is work as well.
Stephen, I for one would love at least 1.6 for one single reason: having
@Override at interfaces :-)
Regards Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
On Feb 7, 2013 1:01 PM, Nigel Magnay nigel.mag...@gmail.com wrote:
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
been
extended* by a year!
You know that Jenkins is looking like going Java 1.6+ in the core, right?
And I suspect virtually all plugins are getting compiled against 1.6 these
days. I know mine are.
Are you saying that AIX 5.3 has no 1.6 JDK, or that WAS 6.1 doesn't work on
a 1.6 JDK (which would be... terrifying) ?
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd quite
a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is
running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and are
unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure
would
be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
So, please do not cut us off from future updates.
I think what irritates developers is this sort of call is parsed as,
effectively, please chain yourselves, corporate-style, to something
totally obsolescent because some dinosaur refuses to upgrade. Whilst that
is the kind of thing you just have to suck up in a $dayjob - because
there's money flowing (I bet IBM take hefty fee for this support) - in OSS
where it's often being done 'for fun' rather than 'for money'', what's the
incentive? They're simply not going to care terribly much, no matter how
many WAS instances you happen to have. For many people it's *all about* the
shiny and new.
It's not like the old versions are going away. e.g: If you were stuck on a
1.4 JVM, Maven 2.0.11 is still there for download. Jenkins has a LTS
edition, and commercial support providers. I'm sure Maven does too. If
you're stuck in an environment where you can only run an 8-year-old JVM,
you might want to see if you can buy a support contract to fix any bugs
that are in your old editions.
Alternatively, look upon it as OSS doing you a big favour. As your platform
becomes no longer supported, you should have a much easier time building
the business case for moving on to something more appropriate for 2013. ;-)
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
Hi Stephen,
No, Java 1.6 is not available for AIX 5.3. It's support started as of 6.1.
Nicely worded on the good reasons.
The project that I'm working on now is upgrading everying, but even then,
we're only targeting 1.6, as that is what WAS/WPS/APS V8 all run on.
-Chris
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 February 2013 08:58, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 07/02/2013, at 6:59 PM, Baptiste MATHUS m...@batmat.net wrote:
Le 7 févr. 2013 04:54, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hey All.
Regarding the discussions around upgrading to a minimum of Java 1.6.
Whilst I understand the desire for developers to play with something
shiny
and new,
Please. Can we stop using that kind of father-ish formulation? That's
not
the first time.
It makes it sound like meeh, it happened again. Those /developers/
kids
not getting what business is about just did it again
I do find that the current 1.5 based Maven is more than sufficient
for our needs.
I lot of responses about the upgrade are normally around the just
upgrade
the java (assuming that I am running under tomcat of similar [if only
it
was so simple as that!]).
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
been
extended* by a year!
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd
quite a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
Can you get a 1.6+ JRE on there? In other words, use 1.6 or 1.7 to run
Maven and use toolchains to fork down to the 1.5 JDK for compiling and
running tests.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is
running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Twice in a row. What's the issue with products that eases your life
when
it
comes to upgrading things?
Not at all. It's a matter of scale and support.
We have one client who has 3,500 instances of WAS running and no tomcat.
We are not going to retrain the (thousands) of support staff (globally)
to
support a new product easily (or cheaply), especially when you generally
have multiple different buckets of money for dev, support maint and BAU.
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I
suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of
us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I'm not sure I perfectly see your point. We also use aix and jenkins
and
Maven, and it's possible as anywhere else to install many JDK versions
on
an IBM/aix server. You're then not forced to use the same JDK version
for
your builds and for running your jenkins server.
That may work in some cases. Agreed. But perhaps not all. Thinking ESB
and
BPM builds here; I'll need to think about that one.
Sounds like either defects in Toolchains or the plugins used for those
builds do not understand toolchains.
Long term we need to get those issues resolved, because like it or not, at
*some stage* we need to move off of 1.5 and onwards to 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8.
I am against moving up just because. However I am all in favour of moving
up because XYZ.
For me invalid reasons to move to as a runtime requirement 1.6 are things
like:
* I cannot get a 1.5 JDK on my chosen development machine = configure
animal-sniffer
* There is a compiler bug in generics that means that some of the generics
I want to introduce into Maven's APIs will not compile on JDK 1.5 = that
is a valid reason to require 1.6 as a build maven requirement, but
animal-sniffer can let us keep 1.5 as a run-time requirement.
Valid reasons to move to 1.6 are things like:
* This 3rd party dependency we use has a bug that needs fixing, they have
fixed it in version V.W but that artifact is using 1.6 bytecode so we
either keep the bug or upgrade the dependency and consequently upgrade the
minimum required JVM to run Maven.
* There is a big feature that I want to implement and it will be 10 times
easier to write and maintain with the language features in 1.6
My point is I am 100% fine with us upping the requirement to 1.6 or 1.7. I
just want a *good* reason... doesn't have to be a *big* reason... just a
good one.
-STephen
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and
are
unable to report their
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
+1000 Regards, Hervé Le jeudi 7 février 2013 11:46:52 Stephen Connolly a écrit : [...] I am against moving up just because. However I am all in favour of moving up because XYZ. For me invalid reasons to move to as a runtime requirement 1.6 are things like: * I cannot get a 1.5 JDK on my chosen development machine = configure animal-sniffer * There is a compiler bug in generics that means that some of the generics I want to introduce into Maven's APIs will not compile on JDK 1.5 = that is a valid reason to require 1.6 as a build maven requirement, but animal-sniffer can let us keep 1.5 as a run-time requirement. Valid reasons to move to 1.6 are things like: * This 3rd party dependency we use has a bug that needs fixing, they have fixed it in version V.W but that artifact is using 1.6 bytecode so we either keep the bug or upgrade the dependency and consequently upgrade the minimum required JVM to run Maven. * There is a big feature that I want to implement and it will be 10 times easier to write and maintain with the language features in 1.6 My point is I am 100% fine with us upping the requirement to 1.6 or 1.7. I just want a *good* reason... doesn't have to be a *big* reason... just a good one. -STephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
Hi Nigel.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Nigel Magnay nigel.mag...@gmail.comwrote:
I am running Maven inside of Jenkins inside of WebSphere on AIX. I am
currently hosting Jenkins under WAS 6.1 on AIX 5.3. Whilst AIX 5.3 is
nearing (or may have reached it's EOS), WAS 6.1's EOS dates have *just
been
extended* by a year!
You know that Jenkins is looking like going Java 1.6+ in the core, right?
And I suspect virtually all plugins are getting compiled against 1.6 these
days. I know mine are.
Yes, I'm aware of the move within Jenkins. My original comment above, as a
re-edited version os what I wrote to Kohsuke on the subject. His main
concern was whether people are aware of the need to have an upgrade path. I
gave him my view of the IBM internals, and ended up with the view that
those who were not considering an upgrade were never likely too.
Are you saying that AIX 5.3 has no 1.6 JDK, or that WAS 6.1 doesn't work on
a 1.6 JDK (which would be... terrifying) ?
Both! AIX 5.3 does not support Java 1.6 (that started at AIX 6.1) As far as
I know, you can not put WAS 6.1 on top of Java 1.5. It comes with 1.5. It
runs on 1.5. Even if you could, I'm sure that it would not be supported.
Additionally, although the Sun/Oracle Java 1.5 may have been EOS'd quite
a
while ago, the IBM Java 1.5/5 is most definately not EOS. Please see:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lifecycle/index.html.
Running on AIX, we have one choice in JDK: IBM.
The IBM 1.5/5 EOS is Sept 2015!
The reality is that we have lots of WebSphere servers running in large
data
centres. So simply stating just upgrade java (assuming that it is
running
under Tomcat or similar) is simply not an option for us.
Whilst I do realise that very (1.5% by your [Jenkins] figures {I suspect
that maven figures are similar]) few of us still run on 1.5, some of us
will simply not be able to upgrade to a newer version of WAS/JDK as a
simple task. It's not as easy as clicking your fingers.
I also do wonder how many installations are in said data centres and are
unable to report their presence. So I do believe that the 1.5% figure
would
be low, but certainly within an order of magnitude.
So, please do not cut us off from future updates.
I think what irritates developers is this sort of call is parsed as,
effectively, please chain yourselves, corporate-style, to something
totally obsolescent because some dinosaur refuses to upgrade. Whilst that
is the kind of thing you just have to suck up in a $dayjob - because
there's money flowing (I bet IBM take hefty fee for this support) - in OSS
Yes, IBM make a heap from that.
where it's often being done 'for fun' rather than 'for money'', what's the
incentive? They're simply not going to care terribly much, no matter how
many WAS instances you happen to have. For many people it's *all about* the
shiny and new.
It's not like the old versions are going away. e.g: If you were stuck on a
1.4 JVM, Maven 2.0.11 is still there for download. Jenkins has a LTS
I'm still on 2.0.9 for most things. :-)
edition, and commercial support providers. I'm sure Maven does too. If
you're stuck in an environment where you can only run an 8-year-old JVM,
you might want to see if you can buy a support contract to fix any bugs
that are in your old editions.
Alternatively, look upon it as OSS doing you a big favour. As your platform
becomes no longer supported, you should have a much easier time building
the business case for moving on to something more appropriate for 2013. ;-)
The current project I'm on is doing exactly that. The cost of Supporting
EOS software makes upgrading cost effective. :-)
So I'm rolling out Maven 3.0.4 etc. On AIX 7.1, WAS/WPS/ASP V8.0 etc
All of that is a year's work.
-Chris
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
On 02/06/2013 05:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6? The largest in this context would probably be: - annotation processors - script engine - split bytecode verifier (thus quicker startup) Java 7 is a bigger bump (NIO.2, try-with-resources, etc.). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
On Feb 7, 2013, at 19:28, Jesse Glick jgl...@cloudbees.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 05:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6? The largest in this context would probably be: - annotation processors - script engine - split bytecode verifier (thus quicker startup) Java 7 is a bigger bump (NIO.2, try-with-resources, etc.). Diamond shorthand is nice too. Gary - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: EOL of 1.5 as minimum
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Jesse Glick jgl...@cloudbees.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 05:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: What are the big features and possibilities we gain from 1.6? The largest in this context would probably be: - annotation processors I'm really vague on this, but wasn't there some changes with the APT with Java 7 (I'm probably wrong, but I seem to remember that they were removed?!?? [WHich is why I remember it]). Someone want to set me straight here? - script engine - split bytecode verifier (thus quicker startup) Java 7 is a bigger bump (NIO.2, try-with-resources, etc.). --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**orgdev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Fast or exact ?
In general, I think that the default value should be whatever works in most cases. Then we could have params for tweaking this (for better performance e.g. in specific cases), but it would be up to the user to do this. So, in this specific case, I think the default should be to recompress so that it always works even though it might be a bit slower. /Anders On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kristian Rosenvold kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com wrote: A lot of you seemed to have realized that the latest version of war and assembly have chosen the fast option over the compact option; and you actually seem to like it ;) https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-639 has been filed and fixed which will revert the behaviour back to slow for both war and assembly, So what do you think ? Kristian
