Le 7/16/13 2:34 AM, sebb a écrit :
On 29 June 2013 21:41, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 6/29/13 7:35 PM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
I think having the codec module java 6 compatible would help to use it
with MINA2 or other framework.
WDYT ?
I don't mind if it's JAVA 6
Le 7/16/13 2:41 AM, sebb a écrit :
On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich steve.ulr...@proemion.com wrote:
2 Reasons for 7.0:
1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the (testing,
developing, whatever) effort
sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] wrote:
On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich steve.ulr...@proemion.com wrote:
2 Reasons for 7.0:
1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the
(testing, developing, whatever)
Le 7/16/13 10:34 AM, Steve Ulrich a écrit :
sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] wrote:
On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich steve.ulr...@proemion.com wrote:
2 Reasons for 7.0:
1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of
On 16 July 2013 09:12, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 7/16/13 2:41 AM, sebb a écrit :
On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich steve.ulr...@proemion.com wrote:
2 Reasons for 7.0:
1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
2) Developers who don't want to upgrade
Le 7/16/13 12:10 PM, sebb a écrit :
I don't think that's generally true.
If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
Especially if the system is installed on multiple nodes which may have
different hardware
On 16 July 2013 14:07, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 7/16/13 12:10 PM, sebb a écrit :
I don't think that's generally true.
If MINA is part of a larger system, then updating Java as well as MINA
is a lot more work and testing than just updating MINA.
Especially if the
Le 7/16/13 6:57 PM, sebb a écrit :
In other words, Time is of the essence
Well yes, but that has little to do with whether to move to Java 6 or Java 7.
In our case, it does. We aren't enough and we have not a lot of work
time to dedicate to support for older versions of java for all the MINA
On 29 June 2013 21:41, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 6/29/13 7:35 PM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
I think having the codec module java 6 compatible would help to use it
with MINA2 or other framework.
WDYT ?
I don't mind if it's JAVA 6 compatble, as soon as we still can
On 21 May 2013 10:02, Steve Ulrich steve.ulr...@proemion.com wrote:
2 Reasons for 7.0:
1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the (testing,
developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
I
I think having the codec module java 6 compatible would help to use it
with MINA2 or other framework.
WDYT ?
--
Julien Vermillard http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Steve Ulrich
steve.ulr...@proemion.com wrote:
2 Reasons for 7.0:
1) When MINA 3 is
Le 6/29/13 7:35 PM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
I think having the codec module java 6 compatible would help to use it
with MINA2 or other framework.
WDYT ?
I don't mind if it's JAVA 6 compatble, as soon as we still can benefit
from Java 7 features in the core.
Also be sure to add a warning in
+1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
2013/5/20 Raphaël Barazzutti raphael.barazzu...@gmail.com
IMHO, developers who will do the jump to MINA 3.0, might also want to
benefit of the cutting-edge features of JDK7.
+1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Julien Vermillard
2 Reasons for 7.0:
1) When MINA 3 is released, Java 8 is near or already released
2) Developers who don't want to upgrade to Java 7 because of the (testing,
developing, whatever) effort won't upgrade to MINA 3 either.
So +1 for Java 7
Raphaël Barazzutti [mailto:raphael.barazzu...@gmail.com]
Hi !
Would it cause problems for having MINA 3 jdk7 only ?
The rational is quite simple : multicast udp support is only in jdk7.
I know a lot of people are still running jdk6 or event 5 :) that's why I ask.
Julien
Le 5/20/13 8:36 AM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
Hi !
Would it cause problems for having MINA 3 jdk7 only ?
The rational is quite simple : multicast udp support is only in jdk7.
I know a lot of people are still running jdk6 or event 5 :) that's why I ask.
Java 6 is EOL since last year.
The idea of being 7 only is to avoid that ;)
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 5/20/13 8:36 AM, Julien Vermillard a écrit :
Hi !
Would it cause problems for having MINA 3 jdk7 only ?
The rational is quite simple : multicast udp support is only
IMHO, developers who will do the jump to MINA 3.0, might also want to
benefit of the cutting-edge features of JDK7.
+1 for MINA 3.0 on JDK7
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Julien Vermillard jvermill...@gmail.comwrote:
The idea of being 7 only is to avoid that ;)
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at
18 matches
Mail list logo
