[codec] Java 8

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

[codec] Java 8

garydgregory
Hi All,

Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.

Gary
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

Rob Tompkins
+1, but there are considerable projects out there that would want us to maintain backwards compatibility with Java 7.

> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
>
> Gary

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

garydgregory
This comes up from time to time and I can only offer my usual "if you want
support for a dead version of Java, feel free to provide a PR" We can
always provide 1.12.1 for Java 7 security fixes or other fixes deemed
important enough.

Gary

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1, but there are considerable projects out there that would want us to
> maintain backwards compatibility with Java 7.
>
> > On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
> >
> > Gary
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

Rob Tompkins
That seems reasonable.

> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This comes up from time to time and I can only offer my usual "if you want
> support for a dead version of Java, feel free to provide a PR" We can
> always provide 1.12.1 for Java 7 security fixes or other fixes deemed
> important enough.
>
> Gary
>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1, but there are considerable projects out there that would want us to
>> maintain backwards compatibility with Java 7.
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
>>>
>>> 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: [codec] Java 8

sebb-2-2
I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
becomes a big hassle.

Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 15:31, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> That seems reasonable.
>
> > On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > This comes up from time to time and I can only offer my usual "if you want
> > support for a dead version of Java, feel free to provide a PR" We can
> > always provide 1.12.1 for Java 7 security fixes or other fixes deemed
> > important enough.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1, but there are considerable projects out there that would want us to
> >> maintain backwards compatibility with Java 7.
> >>
> >>> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
> >>>
> >>> 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
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

garydgregory
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> becomes a big hassle.
>
> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
>

I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new development
on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off.

Gary


> On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 15:31, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > That seems reasonable.
> >
> > > On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > This comes up from time to time and I can only offer my usual "if you
> want
> > > support for a dead version of Java, feel free to provide a PR" We can
> > > always provide 1.12.1 for Java 7 security fixes or other fixes deemed
> > > important enough.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1, but there are considerable projects out there that would want us
> to
> > >> maintain backwards compatibility with Java 7.
> > >>
> > >>> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi All,
> > >>>
> > >>> Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

sebb-2-2
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 18:56, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> > becomes a big hassle.
> >
> > Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
> >
>
> I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new development
> on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off.

Code written for Java 7 still runs on Java 8+
Java 7 is not dead in that sense.

> Gary
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 15:31, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > That seems reasonable.
> > >
> > > > On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:23 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This comes up from time to time and I can only offer my usual "if you
> > want
> > > > support for a dead version of Java, feel free to provide a PR" We can
> > > > always provide 1.12.1 for Java 7 security fixes or other fixes deemed
> > > > important enough.
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1, but there are considerable projects out there that would want us
> > to
> > > >> maintain backwards compatibility with Java 7.
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi All,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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]
> >
> >

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

Pascal Schumacher
In reply to this post by garydgregory


Am 22. März 2019 19:56:29 MEZ schrieb Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:

>On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
>> becomes a big hassle.
>>
>> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
>>
>
>I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new
>development
>on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off.

+1


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

Matt Sicker
I'd like to know what developers are both stuck in Java 7 (or earlier)
and also have the liberty to upgrade any of their dependencies
regardless of compatibility concerns. My thoughts are that being stuck
in the past for one dependency tends to leak into every other
dependency for the same underlying reasons.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 06:27, Pascal Schumacher
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Am 22. März 2019 19:56:29 MEZ schrieb Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:
> >On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> >> becomes a big hassle.
> >>
> >> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
> >>
> >
> >I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new
> >development
> >on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off.
>
> +1
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

sebb-2-2
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 19:01, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'd like to know what developers are both stuck in Java 7 (or earlier)
> and also have the liberty to upgrade any of their dependencies
> regardless of compatibility concerns. My thoughts are that being stuck
> in the past for one dependency tends to leak into every other
> dependency for the same underlying reasons.

There is a big difference between upgrading the JVM and upgrading one
or two dependencies.

It's much easier to test against a new version of a single dependency
than to test against a new version of Java.

Changing JVM is akin to asking a business to upgrade from Windows 7 to
Windows 8 just to use an updated version of one application on a
system that has many other apps that rely on Windows 7.

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 06:27, Pascal Schumacher
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 22. März 2019 19:56:29 MEZ schrieb Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:
> > >On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> > >> becomes a big hassle.
> > >>
> > >> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
> > >>
> > >
> > >I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new
> > >development
> > >on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[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: [codec] Java 8

Bernd Eckenfels
In reply to this post by Matt Sicker
This is a good general assumption that legacy installations do not care about new releases, however there is one quite common problem, if they wait for Commons Bugfixes they will be unhappy if a minor Release no longer works in their environment (and they would have to recompile). That’s why I generally vote for updates only to releases where no Läger number of requested bugfixes is shipped.

Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net

________________________________
Von: Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, März 26, 2019 8:01 PM
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: Re: [codec] Java 8

I'd like to know what developers are both stuck in Java 7 (or earlier)
and also have the liberty to upgrade any of their dependencies
regardless of compatibility concerns. My thoughts are that being stuck
in the past for one dependency tends to leak into every other
dependency for the same underlying reasons.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 06:27, Pascal Schumacher
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Am 22. März 2019 19:56:29 MEZ schrieb Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:
> >On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> >> becomes a big hassle.
> >>
> >> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
> >>
> >
> >I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new
> >development
> >on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off.
>
> +1
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

Bruno P. Kinoshita-2
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
Indeed. I worked in a bank and in a research company, where in both at least one department was stuck in an old version for issues with the code base or environment policies/decisions.
Agree not the best choice, but sometimes developers simply cannot immediately upgrade jvm.
Some managers may even prefer to pay a vendor (eg oracle) for extra time support.
B

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
 
  On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 8:10, sebb<[hidden email]> wrote:   On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 19:01, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'd like to know what developers are both stuck in Java 7 (or earlier)
> and also have the liberty to upgrade any of their dependencies
> regardless of compatibility concerns. My thoughts are that being stuck
> in the past for one dependency tends to leak into every other
> dependency for the same underlying reasons.

There is a big difference between upgrading the JVM and upgrading one
or two dependencies.

It's much easier to test against a new version of a single dependency
than to test against a new version of Java.

Changing JVM is akin to asking a business to upgrade from Windows 7 to
Windows 8 just to use an updated version of one application on a
system that has many other apps that rely on Windows 7.

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 06:27, Pascal Schumacher
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 22. März 2019 19:56:29 MEZ schrieb Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:
> > >On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> > >> becomes a big hassle.
> > >>
> > >> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
> > >>
> > >
> > >I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new
> > >development
> > >on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[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: [codec] Java 8

Matt Sicker
If it were easier to maintain branches against various releases of
Java, perhaps this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Also, philosophically, I'm already at the point where I consider Java
8 to be the "old" version of Java that's considered a bare minimum,
and new/existing projects should be running on Java 12 (or 11) even if
they're not targeting that source level yet. Hearing about people
still stuck with older versions is disheartening.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 14:13, Bruno P. Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Indeed. I worked in a bank and in a research company, where in both at least one department was stuck in an old version for issues with the code base or environment policies/decisions.
> Agree not the best choice, but sometimes developers simply cannot immediately upgrade jvm.
> Some managers may even prefer to pay a vendor (eg oracle) for extra time support.
> B
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>
>   On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 8:10, sebb<[hidden email]> wrote:   On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 19:01, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to know what developers are both stuck in Java 7 (or earlier)
> > and also have the liberty to upgrade any of their dependencies
> > regardless of compatibility concerns. My thoughts are that being stuck
> > in the past for one dependency tends to leak into every other
> > dependency for the same underlying reasons.
>
> There is a big difference between upgrading the JVM and upgrading one
> or two dependencies.
>
> It's much easier to test against a new version of a single dependency
> than to test against a new version of Java.
>
> Changing JVM is akin to asking a business to upgrade from Windows 7 to
> Windows 8 just to use an updated version of one application on a
> system that has many other apps that rely on Windows 7.
>
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 06:27, Pascal Schumacher
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 22. März 2019 19:56:29 MEZ schrieb Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:
> > > >On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:53 PM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I see no reason to update to Java 8 unless continuing with Java 7
> > > >> becomes a big hassle.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why penalise people stuck on Java 7 unnecessarily?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >I see it the other way around: Why do we want to handcuff new
> > > >development
> > > >on a dead platforms? For new contributors, this is a huge turn off.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <[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]
>


--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [codec] Java 8

Benedikt Ritter-4
In reply to this post by garydgregory
Am Fr., 22. März 2019 um 16:13 Uhr schrieb Gary Gregory <
[hidden email]>:

> Hi All,
>
> Now that Codec 1.12 is out, I plan on updating from Java 7 to Java 8.
>

+1


>
> Gary
>