commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Can the next version major version of a project require Java6? (i.e. drop Java 1.5)
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:37:11 GMT
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 implementation methods and
>> ServiceLoader, for example, maybe it's worth that tiny bit of extra
>> pain to reach that slightly larger audience."  We all feel frustrated
>> from time to time working in the community setting; I've been there
>> myself, but I don't think Seb is just trying to be a killjoy just for
>> the hell of it.
> Yes, you might be right on this interpretation.
> As long as there a volunteers for maintaining jexl2 on j5 setting, I
> am fine with keeping j5 for it. To be clear, I am not saying we kill
> jexl2 today or quit jdk5 support for jexl2.
> But we should not make it a policy to start a new, major version with
> the lowest JDK version possible when the actual maintainers would like
> to use a current platform - this needs no discussion imho, they should
> simply do as they please.

I agree that the developers of a component should do as they
[collectively] please.  However, in the case of [jexl] it appears that
Seb is interested in the development of this component.  He may
continue to be interested in the development of a v3.x of [jexl].  Now
we don't have as clear-cut a case of do-ocracy and henrib just doing
what he pleases anymore, because he has to do instead "as near as he
can get to what he pleases while still functioning in a
consensus-based manner."  A possible sequence of events:

  - henrib proposes that [jexl] include feature X, using feature Y
from Java 6, thus justifying this minimum version.  Assuming the
community doesn't vote down the feature on its own merits, Java 6 it
 - sebb can then come along say, hey, I know we agreed on feature X,
but I can put in 4 hours of work or create a new Commons component to
reimplement feature Y, and now Java 5 users can also benefit from
[jexl] 3!

Assuming someone else is willing to do the *actual* work required to
keep Java 5 compatibility, are you really going to spend time and
energy fighting for interface @Overrides?  Obviously there would
probably be some point at which Seb in this example would say, sure, I
could reimplement feature Y, but it's going to take ten hours, twenty
hours.  Not worth it; have your Java 6!

This is the way I see our community as having to function.


> Cheers
>> Matt
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>> 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 can not/does not want to incur the cost of maintaining a
JDK 1.5
>>>>> on its dev platforms to be able to contribute to newer versions...
>>>> No, I don't consider that a valid reason on its own.
>>> Committing should be fun. If one does not want to support JDK 1.5 he
>>> goes away. Henri seems as he does not want and would like to put
>>> effort in a more modern environment. In addition, how many people can
>>> you attract with a JDK 1.5 version to contribute? For me this is valid
>>> reason.
>>>>> And no-one is stating that Java 1.5 is not in used in production somewhere;
>>>>> but IMHO, these are not the ones that will be JEXL3 users, especially
>>>>> they have 2.1 (soon).
>>>>> Anyway and beyond the point, my advice to 1.5 users is that before trying
>>>>> use "new" versions of libraries, migrating away from an unsupported/EOLed
>>>>> platform should be their priority.
>>>> Indeed, ideally everyone would now be using Java 6 and Windows users
>>>> should all upgrade to Windows 7 etc.
>>>> But that is a separate issue.
>>> No it is not.
>>> It seems you ignore my idea on having jexl2 in maintenance mode, but
>>> this is actually what MS did with Win XP. Now they don't support it. I
>>> ask myself, why do we need to support outdated jdks until all
>>> committers are gone away or the library is the outdated people get
>>> some fresher stuff (Collections vs Guava)?
>>> If Henri is the opinion that people should use jdk6 he should be
>>> allowed to create such a version and call it Jexl3.
>>> If you want to keep a jdk5 version, you are of course allowed to
>>> support that one.
>>> Cheers
>>> Christian
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> --

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message