uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: Jenkins, we have a problem - with Java 5
Date Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:49:48 GMT

On 9/2/2013 8:56 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> So... just to pick up the result of the discussion:
> We will probably switch all modules to a newer Java version next year
> and the upcoming ruta release should still be based on Java 5, right?
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.  If you mean, you will do your
development using Java 6 or 7, but not use any of their new classes/methods,
sticking to just Java 5 ones, so the release will still be OK on Java 5, keeping
maven source/target compliance level set to 5, then that's OK.

For the Eclipse workbench part, does the lowest version of Eclipse you are
targeting have a Java version level prerequisite?

> Best,
> Peter
> On 29.07.2013 15:29, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> Clarifying:
>> I develop in Java 7 :-).  I was depending on our Jenkins runs to point out
>> anthing that "snuck" into the build that had dependencies on Java 6 or 7.
>> The downside for changing the prerequisite to Java 7 would be that there might
>> be some customers of UIMA who are currently running it on Java 6, just fine, in
>> deployments, who, when they upgraded to the next level of UIMA, would find it
>> necessary to upgrade to Java 7. 
>> I'm aware of at least one major corporation that uses UIMA inside products it
>> ships, that is on Java 1.6 (although, I suspect they will be moving to Java 7 at
>> some point in the future, of course).
>> So, it's a matter of potentially "forcing" customers to upgrade to Java 7.
>> I'm not sure this is a real issue, with customers, which is why I've asked on
>> the users list.
>> If we get a sense that Java 7 is fine with all customers who are upgrading, then
>> I'm fine with switching to 7; maybe that's the right target, if we advertise and
>> set the switch date for mid-next-year.
>> -Marshall
>> On 7/29/2013 6:09 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2013 06:15 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> If that's the case, then probably a good idea is to publicize the upcoming
>>>> switch with a quite long lead time, so that users get an ample chance to
>>>> and/or raise concerns.
>>> If we do such an investigation we should also check what impact a switch to
>>> Java 7 would have.
>>> Maybe we can directly switch to Java 7?
>>> Jörn

View raw message