[VFS] Minimum Java version

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
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

Ryan McKinley
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
+1 for java 5!


On Aug 19, 2009, at 10:18 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 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 James Carman
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

James Carman
What about the maven2 group/artifact id?


On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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.

With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes  that would have
broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then creating a
list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the decision
based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.

Niall

> 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:If
>
>> 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]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by James Carman
The maven group id for 2.0 is currently org.apache.commons. It was  
commons-vfs for VFS 1.0, so it would already be possible to have both  
jars simultaneously. So if the package names are not changed then the  
pom needs to be changed to use commons-vfs as the groupId before 2.0  
is formally released.

Ralph

On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:38 AM, James Carman wrote:

> What about the maven2 group/artifact id?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]
> > wrote:
>> 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]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Mark Fortner-3
I wonder if the BSD-licensed Retroweaver (http://retroweaver.sf.net) could
be used to provide 1.4 binary compatibility for those who need it?

Regards,

Mark Fortner
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

James Carman
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
Yeah, we probably need to change the package name to o.a.c.vfs2 and
the artifactId to commons-vfs2.  Or, go back the other way, as you
suggest (provided it's backward compatible).

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]> wrote:

> The maven group id for 2.0 is currently org.apache.commons. It was
> commons-vfs for VFS 1.0, so it would already be possible to have both jars
> simultaneously. So if the package names are not changed then the pom needs
> to be changed to use commons-vfs as the groupId before 2.0 is formally
> released.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:38 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
>> What about the maven2 group/artifact id?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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

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

Gary Gregory
In reply to this post by Niall Pemberton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
> To: Commons Users List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes  that would have
> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then creating a
> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the decision
> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.

That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and v2 co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be renamed. So if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and rename now.

Gary

>
> Niall
>
> > 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:If
> >
> >> 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]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by Gary Gregory
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Gary
Gregory<[hidden email]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
>> To: Commons Users List
>> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes  that would have
>> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
>> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
>> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then creating a
>> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the decision
>> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
>
> That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and v2 co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be renamed. So if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and rename now.

I don't really get why you say it complicates matters as being
backwards compatible means that you don't need v1 & v2 to co-exist.

Niall

> Gary
>
>>
>> Niall
>>
>> > 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:If
>> >
>> >> 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]
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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

michele bianchi
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
+1 for java 5!

m

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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Gary Gregory

On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
>> To: Commons Users List
>> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]
>> >
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes  that would have
>> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
>> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
>> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then  
>> creating a
>> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the  
>> decision
>> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
>
> That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and  
> v2 co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be  
> renamed. So if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and  
> rename now.
>

I think the point Niall is making is valid. Currently the minimum JDK  
version of 2.0 is 1.4. I would think to start with all we would change  
would be the version variable in the pom and then take advantage of it  
a few places internally. We haven't planned on doing anything that is  
incompatible at this point.

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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:53 AM
> To: Commons Users List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
> >> To: Commons Users List
> >> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes  that would have
> >> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore
> >> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK
> >> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then
> >> creating a
> >> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the
> >> decision
> >> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are.
> >
> > That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and
> > v2 co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be
> > renamed. So if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and
> > rename now.
> >
>
> I think the point Niall is making is valid. Currently the minimum JDK
> version of 2.0 is 1.4. I would think to start with all we would change
> would be the version variable in the pom and then take advantage of it
> a few places internally. We haven't planned on doing anything that is
> incompatible at this point.

Sure, I am just thinking that when I have worked on projects that have opened the door to Java 5/6, it's opened the floodgates to using new APIs, Generics, etc. Compatibility for existing v1.0 call sites should still be a goal of course.

Gary

>
> 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

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

rzorzorzo
+1 for 1.5

- Ron
http://sourceforge.net/projects/yajsw/

[hidden email] wrote:

> 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]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Ted Dunning
+1 for 1.6

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:57 AM, rzo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for 1.5
>
> - Ron
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/yajsw/
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
12