[VFS] Minimum Java version

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

[VFS] Minimum Java version

Ralph Goers
Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4.  VFS 2.0 has  
not been released and the developers are considering making the  
minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the  
community however before this change is made.  So please respond with  
your thoughts on this.

Ralph

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

James Carman
Are they going to change the package name?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4.  VFS 2.0 has not been
> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version JDK
> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however before
> this change is made.  So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

Ralph Goers
The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely  
have to be considered whether we would want to take on the package  
renaming right now.

The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was  
correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since  
some of the code actually required that version to run.

Ralph

On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:

> Are they going to change the package name?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]
> > wrote:
>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4.  VFS 2.0 has  
>> not been
>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum  
>> version JDK
>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however  
>> before
>> this change is made.  So please respond with your thoughts on this.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers

On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:18 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:

> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4.  VFS 2.0 has  
> not been released and the developers are considering making the  
> minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from  
> the community however before this change is made.  So please respond  
> with your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph

To answer my own question, Commons Configuration 1.7-SNAPSHOT is using  
Commons VFS 2.0-SNAPSHOT as an optional dependency. Configuration has  
a minimum JDK of 1.3. Although it is an optional runtime dependency,  
some of the public classes are needed at compile time. This has not  
been a problem so far and would be OK provided this continued to work  
after the change. I don't believe it would be a problem to add the  
requirement for JDK 5 to the use of this feature in Commons  
Configuration.

Ralph

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version

Gary Gregory
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
+1 for Java 5.

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:18 AM
> To: Commons Developers List; Commons Users List
> Subject: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4.  VFS 2.0 has
> not been released and the developers are considering making the
> minimum version JDK 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the
> community however before this change is made.  So please respond with
> your thoughts on this.
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version

Mario Ivankovits
In reply to this post by James Carman
Hi!

+1 on Java 5.

> Are they going to change the package name?
Let's discuss this once we cross this bridge.

Ciao,
Mario


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

Jörg Schaible
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
Hi Ralph,

+1 on Java 5.

Ralph Goers wrote at Mittwoch, 19. August 2009 16:34:

> The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely
> have to be considered whether we would want to take on the package
> renaming right now.
>
> The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was
> correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since
> some of the code actually required that version to run.

as Niall already pointed out, it depends whether 2.0 is binary compatible or
not. Generics do not necessarily break compatibility.

- Jörg


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

David J. M. Karlsen
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Ralph Goers wrote:

> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4.  VFS 2.0 has not been
> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version JDK 5.
> We are interested in getting feedback from the community however before this
> change is made.  So please respond with your thoughts on this.


In favour of 1.5 as minimum.
Older JDKs are EOL - and java5 came with a lot of enhancements.

--
David J. M. Karlsen - +47 90 68 22 43
http://www.davidkarlsen.com
http://mp3.davidkarlsen.com

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

James Carman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:58 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In favour of 1.5 as minimum.
> Older JDKs are EOL - and java5 came with a lot of enhancements.
>

JDK5 is very close to EOSL!

http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index_jdk5.jsp

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VFS] Minimum Java version

Gary Gregory
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of James Carman
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 8:23 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:58 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > In favour of 1.5 as minimum.
> > Older JDKs are EOL - and java5 came with a lot of enhancements.
> >
>
> JDK5 is very close to EOSL!
>
> http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index_jdk5.jsp

Java 6 would be fine by me, 21st century and all.

Gary

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


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

James Carman
Well, if you're going to make a jump, why go to something that's EOSL very soon?

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Gary
Gregory<[hidden email]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> On Behalf Of James Carman
>> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 8:23 PM
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:58 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > In favour of 1.5 as minimum.
>> > Older JDKs are EOL - and java5 came with a lot of enhancements.
>> >
>>
>> JDK5 is very close to EOSL!
>>
>> http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index_jdk5.jsp
>
> Java 6 would be fine by me, 21st century and all.
>
> Gary
>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AW: [VFS] Minimum Java version

Mario Ivankovits
> Well, if you're going to make a jump, why go to something that's EOSL very soon?

For me, JDK 1.6 would be fine too.
But, I'd say this is just a minor issue as the main things one will notice (generics, enhanced for syntax) are there with JDK 1.5.
Are there any API changes critical for VFS to use? I don't think so.

The next big jump VFS might see will be JDK 1.7 as then they come with a pluggable file provider [1] thingy too. We will see, how VFS fits there.
In fact, I think VFS3 will provide just filesystem providers for JDK 1.7 - don't know if they can deal with layered filesystems though.


Ciao,
Mario

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/nio/javadoc/java/nio/file/FileSystem.html


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