uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Klügl <pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de>
Subject Re: Jenkins, we have a problem - with Java 5
Date Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:55:53 GMT
On 02.09.2013 15:49, Marshall Schor wrote:
> 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
> the
> maven source/target compliance level set to 5, then that's OK.

Yes, I will not include Java 6 stuff until all modules change their
prerequisite next year.

The question targeted the fact that ruta should not require Java 6 in
the next release, but should still stick to Java 5.

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

Not that I know of.

Peter

> -Marshall
>> 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 prepare
>>>>> 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
>>>>


Mime
View raw message