[LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi,

any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for lang
3.9 to Java 1.8?

Regards,
Benedikt
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

garydgregory
Ok by me.

Gary

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 11:09 Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for lang
> 3.9 to Java 1.8?
>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

Pascal Schumacher
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
+1

Am 20. August 2018 19:09:27 MESZ schrieb Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>:
>Hi,
>
>any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for
>lang
>3.9 to Java 1.8?
>
>Regards,
>Benedikt
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

Matt Benson-3
Do you have specific new features or deprecations in mind to accompany the
bump?

Matt

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 7:00 AM Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> Am 20. August 2018 19:09:27 MESZ schrieb Benedikt Ritter <
> [hidden email]>:
> >Hi,
> >
> >any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for
> >lang
> >3.9 to Java 1.8?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Benedikt
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi Matt,
Am Di., 21. Aug. 2018 um 16:12 Uhr schrieb Matt Benson <[hidden email]>:

> Do you have specific new features or deprecations in mind to accompany the
> bump?
>

I'd like to add some helpers for working with java.util.Optional for
example. There are most certainly more opportunities for new Lang APIs once
we have access to the functional interfaces in java.util.function.

java.lang.Objects and java.lang.Arrays also got some new methods in 1.8
which make methods from ObjectUtils and ArrayUtils obsolete.
I also hope that we can deprecate parts of the time package because in Java
1.8 there is the new date and time API.

Regards,
Benedikt


>
> Matt
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 7:00 AM Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Am 20. August 2018 19:09:27 MESZ schrieb Benedikt Ritter <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for
> > >lang
> > >3.9 to Java 1.8?
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Benedikt
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

garydgregory
Also, java.time classes.

Gary

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:54 PM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
> Am Di., 21. Aug. 2018 um 16:12 Uhr schrieb Matt Benson <[hidden email]
> >:
>
> > Do you have specific new features or deprecations in mind to accompany
> the
> > bump?
> >
>
> I'd like to add some helpers for working with java.util.Optional for
> example. There are most certainly more opportunities for new Lang APIs once
> we have access to the functional interfaces in java.util.function.
>
> java.lang.Objects and java.lang.Arrays also got some new methods in 1.8
> which make methods from ObjectUtils and ArrayUtils obsolete.
> I also hope that we can deprecate parts of the time package because in Java
> 1.8 there is the new date and time API.
>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
>
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 7:00 AM Pascal Schumacher <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Am 20. August 2018 19:09:27 MESZ schrieb Benedikt Ritter <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for
> > > >lang
> > > >3.9 to Java 1.8?
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Benedikt
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

Francesco Chicchiriccò
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
On 2018/08/20 17:09:27, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for lang
> 3.9 to Java 1.8?

+1

Wouldn't 4.0 express better the change for the minimum required Java version?

Regards.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi,

Am Mi., 22. Aug. 2018 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Francesco Chicchiriccò <
[hidden email]>:

> On 2018/08/20 17:09:27, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for lang
> > 3.9 to Java 1.8?
>
> +1
>
> Wouldn't 4.0 express better the change for the minimum required Java
> version?
>

We had the convention that Java version changes are okay, as long as the
code is binary compatible. Before we go 4.0, I'd like to see what oracle is
doing with the new release train where they release Java every few month.
I'm not sure what this means for us...

Benedikt


>
> Regards.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

Francesco Chicchiriccò
On 2018/08/22 09:45:29, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Mi., 22. Aug. 2018 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Francesco Chicchiriccò <
> [hidden email]>:
>
> > On 2018/08/20 17:09:27, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for lang
> > > 3.9 to Java 1.8?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Wouldn't 4.0 express better the change for the minimum required Java
> > version?
> >
>
> We had the convention that Java version changes are okay, as long as the
> code is binary compatible. Before we go 4.0, I'd like to see what oracle is
> doing with the new release train where they release Java every few month.
> I'm not sure what this means for us...

I understand, thanks for explanation.
Regards.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Minimum required Java version for 3.9

Benedikt Ritter-4
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi,

Am Mo., 20. Aug. 2018 um 19:09 Uhr schrieb Benedikt Ritter <
[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for lang
> 3.9 to Java 1.8?
>

Since there where no objections, I've created a PR for this change:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/346


>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Use of Java 8 features in the commons

Eitan Adler
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 23:28, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Am Mo., 20. Aug. 2018 um 19:09 Uhr schrieb Benedikt Ritter <
> [hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for lang
> > 3.9 to Java 1.8?
> >
>
> Since there where no objections, I've created a PR for this change:
> https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/346

Apologies if this was discussed in the past (and if so, please point
me at the discussion).

As the various commons libraries switch to Java 8 minimum what do
people thinking of mechanical migrations to use new languages
features. For example making of use of method references, stream API,
etc. Is this something we should only do when we're touching the
relevant code, or are wider migrations reasonable?





--
Eitan Adler

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Use of Java 8 features in the commons

garydgregory
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 6:39 AM Eitan Adler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 23:28, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Mo., 20. Aug. 2018 um 19:09 Uhr schrieb Benedikt Ritter <
> > [hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for
> lang
> > > 3.9 to Java 1.8?
> > >
> >
> > Since there where no objections, I've created a PR for this change:
> > https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/346
>
> Apologies if this was discussed in the past (and if so, please point
> me at the discussion).
>
> As the various commons libraries switch to Java 8 minimum what do
> people thinking of mechanical migrations to use new languages
> features. For example making of use of method references, stream API,
> etc. Is this something we should only do when we're touching the
> relevant code, or are wider migrations reasonable?
>

I think that's fine as long as consequences are understood and accepted.
For example, back in Java 5, the new for each loop can introduce the
creation and use of an  iterator over a collection/array, which creates
garbage that was not there before.

Gary

>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Eitan Adler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Use of Java 8 features in the commons

Benedikt Ritter-4
In reply to this post by Eitan Adler
Hi Eitan,

Am Do., 23. Aug. 2018 um 14:39 Uhr schrieb Eitan Adler <[hidden email]
>:

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 23:28, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Mo., 20. Aug. 2018 um 19:09 Uhr schrieb Benedikt Ritter <
> > [hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > any objections against raising the minimum required Java version for
> lang
> > > 3.9 to Java 1.8?
> > >
> >
> > Since there where no objections, I've created a PR for this change:
> > https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/346
>
> Apologies if this was discussed in the past (and if so, please point
> me at the discussion).
>
> As the various commons libraries switch to Java 8 minimum what do
> people thinking of mechanical migrations to use new languages
> features. For example making of use of method references, stream API,
> etc. Is this something we should only do when we're touching the
> relevant code, or are wider migrations reasonable?
>

Yes we should use the new features available to improve implementation of
our code base. I'm not a friend of automatic migration. I think it's better
do this by hand. Otherwise you might have undesired results.

Benedikt


>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Eitan Adler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Use of Java 8 features in the commons

Stefan Bodewig
In reply to this post by Eitan Adler
On 2018-08-23, Eitan Adler wrote:

> As the various commons libraries switch to Java 8 minimum what do
> people thinking of mechanical migrations to use new languages
> features. For example making of use of method references, stream API,
> etc. Is this something we should only do when we're touching the
> relevant code, or are wider migrations reasonable?

We've had extremely bad experience with commits that switched to new
language features all over the code base. They created extremely big
commits that have been very hard to review - and introduced subtle
diferences that resulted in multiple regressions.

I'd strongly recommend to only change code you are touching anyway.

If you really feel like doing changes accross the code base please make
sure you do so in commits that are of a reasonable size and can be
reviewed easily.

Stefan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]