tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ulrich Stärk <...@spielviel.de>
Subject Re: @Override on interface methods
Date Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:03:24 GMT
On 28.06.2012 20:39, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Ulrich Stärk <uli@spielviel.de> wrote:
>> On 27.06.2012 23:37, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ulrich Stärk <uli@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>>> On 27.06.2012 21:13, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Howard Lewis Ship <hlship@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> Really? Switch JDK versions because of @Override? I stated my concerns about
ditching JDK 1.5
>>>> support without need before. I just would not do it if we don't gain any
significant benefit.
>>> Of course we don't do it just because of this single reason. There are
>>> many small reasons for updating to JDK 1.6 and a few strong concerns
>>> for not doing so. You can always refute any single lesser reason as
>>> not important enough.
>> What are these numerous small reasons? The only ones that I have heard in our past
discussions were
>> JDK5 EOL (which doesn't matter since we are really talking about Java 5 bytecode
compatibility here)
>> and @Override on interface implementations. Please show me that list of small reasons
that when
>> taken as a whole outweigh the concern of loosing or hindering users when switching
to a newer
>> bytecode version.
> 
> - @Override on interface methods
> - jmx api enhancements
> - all the new jdk 1.6 language features
> (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/features-141434.html -
> personally I really like and have multiple times used the new
> collection classes)

So where would these be of use to Tapestry?

> - tapestry-hibernate to use Hibernate 4.1.x

If I understand it correctly, the Java 6 requirement for Hibernate 4.1 was by mistake and
will
likely be reversed with the next release, is that correct?

> 
> We all understand the concern of loosing users by switching to a newer
> bytecode version, but I just think it has to be really, really small
> subset of users. Can you list any users or companies that are
> currently using 5.4 snapshots or would seriously consider switching to
> 5.4, or worse yet, would abandon the whole T5 platform because they
> are currently using java 1.5 and would never consider upgrading their
> jre? I'm sure there are more existing users using T5.0, T5.1 or even
> T5.2 running on JRE 1.5 and that's fine, if they or those apps are in
> maintenance mode, I seriously doubt they'll ever upgrade even to a new
> T5 version.

I can't and you know that. From my experience though those stuck with older Java versions
are mostly
users from bigger corporations. When I joined one of them in 2005 they were still supporting
Java
1.3 and were beginning to test Java 5 (released 2004). When I left them in 2008, there was
no sign
of Java 6 (released 2006) on the horizon. Also, these users will rarely participate in public
discussions on mailing lists and so it's no surprise that we don't hear from them. There were
however some concerns on list about this in the past. See for example Roberts mail at [1].

I'm tired of repeating myself. I believe I made my point of view clear. If there is no technical
merit for introducing that kind of incompatibility I will vote -1 on the respective code change.
As
soon as there is a sound technical reason for using Java 6 language features, I'll be all
for it.
And no, @Override is not one of them in my eyes.

Also, I don't see why we have that discussion over and over again. If there is a problem that
can be
best fixed using Java 6 language features, let's discuss the pros and cons. But as long as
there is
no specific problem to be solved, all this is moot.

Uli

[1] http://markmail.org/message/mkat7mv2taawrdax

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org


Mime
View raw message