Question for vote was "Can the next version major version of a project
require Java6? (i.e. drop Java 1.5)"
Results on binding votes:
Christian Grobmeier +1
Gary Gregory +1
Henri Biestro +1
James Carman +1
Jorg Shaible +1
Luc Maisonobe +1
Simone Tripodi +1
Ralph Goers +1
No -1 or 0.
Thanks you a
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:46 AM, henrib wrote:
> I respect your point of view but it is really hard to attract new
> contributors when we first state they MUST code with JDK 1.5.
> And again, if the need for a Java 1.5 backport is proven - rather than
> imposed by default - , it's always possible
I respect your point of view but it is really hard to attract new
contributors when we first state they MUST code with JDK 1.5.
And again, if the need for a Java 1.5 backport is proven - rather than
imposed by default - , it's always possible to people interested in it to
contribute (and/or ask). P
It's a matter or balance, if you just want to have fun you can build a
component based on OpenJDK 8 with lots of lambda, but nobody will use it
today. And I doubt it will attract new contributors.
If avoiding trivial things like String.isEmpty() can widen the audience,
and thus the potential c
I guess your +1 does not apply to the vote. :-)
And to be honest, javax.script is implemented by org.apache.bsf 3.1 which
runs on Java 1.5...
Nevertheless, the fair point that has been made by Matt later in this thread
is that Commons is a do-ocracy; if someone badly needs a component in Java
1.5,
Le 05/12/2011 20:22, Matt Benson a écrit :
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
+1, move to jdk6 (go to jdk7 if you want :)
On Dec 5, 2011 9:17 AM, "henrib" wrote:
> Sorry to bug everyone again, I'm hopelessly trying to make Commons move a
> little forward...
>
> Since a 2-person opposition never breaks the tie, a vote is in order to
> decide whether JEXL3 (aka the next majo
Le 05/12/2011 16:14, Christian Grobmeier a écrit :
>> [+1] Yes, you may release the next major release of JEXL3 with a Java6
>> requirement
+1
>
> I think the maintainers of a component can decide on their own which
> jdk they want to support. If you want to support a newer Java with the
> next
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:45 AM, henrib wrote:
>
> Matt Benson-2 wrote
>>
>> Maybe the right approach is to start with Java 6, then whoever likes to
>> can
>> investigate how much work it would take to restore Java 5
>> compatibility.
>>
> Seems like a reasonable proposal to me; it means Java 1.5
Matt Benson-2 wrote
>
> Maybe the right approach is to start with Java 6, then whoever likes to
> can
> investigate how much work it would take to restore Java 5
> compatibility.
>
Seems like a reasonable proposal to me; it means Java 1.5 is a "nice to
have" feature - not a "must have" - feature
I'm confused. Is this a vote thread or a discussion thread? So far I've only
seen +1 votes but I may have missed others with all the noise.
Ralph
On Dec 5, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM,
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
I think all that Sebastian is saying is something like "
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson
> wrote:
> >>> I think all that Sebastian is saying is something lik
henrib wrote:
>
> sebb-2-2 wrote
>>
>>
>>> But even if it were the case, you'd still argue for us to continue using
>>> IE6...
>>
>> No, I would not; that's an end-user product.
>>
>>
> I see it as the worst web app client platform... Even on that, we can't
> agree!
> (sorry, couldn't resist
Hi Henri,
henrib wrote:
> Sorry to bug everyone again, I'm hopelessly trying to make Commons move a
> little forward...
>
> Since a 2-person opposition never breaks the tie, a vote is in order to
> decide whether JEXL3 (aka the next major version after 2.1, see JEXL-123)
> can actually break loo
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>>> I think all that Sebastian is saying is something like "if you can
>>> create your new, cool API and the only things you r
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson 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 implemen
sebb-2-2 wrote
>
>
>> But even if it were the case, you'd still argue for us to continue using
>> IE6...
>
> No, I would not; that's an end-user product.
>
>
I see it as the worst web app client platform... Even on that, we can't
agree!
(sorry, couldn't resist :-)...)
--
View this message
On 5 December 2011 19:01, henrib wrote:
>
> sebb-2-2 wrote
>>
>> Indeed, ideally everyone would now be using Java 6 and Windows users
>> should all upgrade to Windows 7 etc.
>>
> But even if it were the case, you'd still argue for us to continue using
> IE6...
No, I would not; that's an end-user
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson 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
Matt Benson-2 wrote
>
> ... maybe it's worth that tiny bit of extra pain to reach that slightly
> larger audience...
>
It is not a tiny bit when you accumulate it; and JEXL3 would not reach a
larger audience because it allows deployment on Java 1.5. This is a wrongly
imposed cost with no benefit
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 a
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 December 2011 18:10, henrib 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 reaso
sebb-2-2 wrote
>
> Indeed, ideally everyone would now be using Java 6 and Windows users
> should all upgrade to Windows 7 etc.
>
But even if it were the case, you'd still argue for us to continue using
IE6...
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Can-
On 5 December 2011 18:10, henrib 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
On 5 December 2011 18:30, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
wrote:
> FWIW, I have been planning on starting work on vfs3 when I finish up with
> some other stuff. VFS3 will require Java 7 as Java 7 provides virtual file
> support, so vfs3 will be slimmed down to just provide implementations.
That's aga
FWIW, I have been planning on starting work on vfs3 when I finish up with
some other stuff. VFS3 will require Java 7 as Java 7 provides virtual file
support, so vfs3 will be slimmed down to just provide implementations.
Ralph
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:51 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 December 2011 16:4
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
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:51 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 December 2011 16:46, henrib wrote:
>> You summed it up pretty well;
>> Can we participate in moving forward - Java6 is not really the bleeding
>> edge... - or are we bound to remain on obsolete platforms with Commons ?
>
> That is not a question
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:44 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
wrote:
> +1 to the proposal.
>
> As for moving out of commons I would expect that it would require a vote of
> the Commons PMC with approval from the board. I don't know why it would
> need to go through the incubator since it would have
On 5 December 2011 16:46, henrib wrote:
> You summed it up pretty well;
> Can we participate in moving forward - Java6 is not really the bleeding
> edge... - or are we bound to remain on obsolete platforms with Commons ?
That is not a question I can answer, because it's not a simple
dichotomy (i
+1 to the proposal.
As for moving out of commons I would expect that it would require a vote of
the Commons PMC with approval from the board. I don't know why it would
need to go through the incubator since it would have already performed
releases here, its IP would already be cleared and presumab
You summed it up pretty well;
Can we participate in moving forward - Java6 is not really the bleeding
edge... - or are we bound to remain on obsolete platforms with Commons ?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Can-the-next-version-major-version-of-
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 December 2011 15:06, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Salut Henri,
>>
>> if you need the Java6 APIs to provide a fre
Forgot to add the vote will close in 72 hours, as per-usual rules.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Can-the-next-version-major-version-of-a-project-require-Java6-i-e-drop-Java-1-5-tp4160635p4161054.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list arch
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 December 2011 15:06, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Salut Henri,
>>
>> if you need the Java6 APIs to provide a fresh new set of APIs to JEXL
>> users, I would be +1.
>> We recently accepted Java6 in Apache Cocoon since Oracle announced
>> Java 5 SE EOL
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>
>> > [+1] Yes, you may release the next major release of JEXL3 with a Java6
>> > requirement
>>
>> I think the maintainers of a component can decide on their own which
>> jdk they
On 5 December 2011 15:06, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut Henri,
>
> if you need the Java6 APIs to provide a fresh new set of APIs to JEXL
> users, I would be +1.
> We recently accepted Java6 in Apache Cocoon since Oracle announced
> Java 5 SE EOL (End Of Life) since 2009.
Cocoon is a slightly diff
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> > [+1] Yes, you may release the next major release of JEXL3 with a Java6
> > requirement
>
> I think the maintainers of a component can decide on their own which
> jdk they want to support. If you want to support a newer Java with the
>
Easy one: +1.
Gary
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> > [+1] Yes, you may release the next major release of JEXL3 with a Java6
> > requirement
>
> I think the maintainers of a component can decide on their own which
> jdk they want to support. If you want to support a
> [+1] Yes, you may release the next major release of JEXL3 with a Java6
> requirement
I think the maintainers of a component can decide on their own which
jdk they want to support. If you want to support a newer Java with the
next big major version of JEXL I give you my +1. For me a major
version
Salut Henri,
if you need the Java6 APIs to provide a fresh new set of APIs to JEXL
users, I would be +1.
We recently accepted Java6 in Apache Cocoon since Oracle announced
Java 5 SE EOL (End Of Life) since 2009.
Anyway I would to point you to a message in the ASF Tika ML[1] where
describing the p
Sorry to bug everyone again, I'm hopelessly trying to make Commons move a
little forward...
Since a 2-person opposition never breaks the tie, a vote is in order to
decide whether JEXL3 (aka the next major version after 2.1, see JEXL-123)
can actually break loose of Java 1.5 compatibility. (sic)
J
43 matches
Mail list logo
