[crypto] On Java 6, really?

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

[crypto] On Java 6, really?

garydgregory
Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?

Gary

--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hello Gary,

Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um
04:18 Uhr:

> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>

As far as I understand the whole point of crypto was to bring this kind of
crypto performance to Java 6.


>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Marcelo Vanzin
In reply to this post by garydgregory
I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move to Java 7?

That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory



--
Marcelo

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

sebb-2-2
Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?

Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?

If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
unnecessary for the initial release.


On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move to Java 7?
>
> That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> Marcelo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hello Sebb,

sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 18:09 Uhr:

> Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
>
> Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
>
> If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
> unnecessary for the initial release.
>

I think people have expressed in various ways that they don't want to work
on projects which are stuck on dead Java version. I think we have to
respect this.

Benedikt


>
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move to
> Java 7?
> >
> > That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >> --
> >> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Marcelo
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

James Carman
+1
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:11 PM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Sebb,
>
> sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 18:09 Uhr:
>
> > Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
> >
> > Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
> >
> > If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
> > unnecessary for the initial release.
> >
>
> I think people have expressed in various ways that they don't want to work
> on projects which are stuck on dead Java version. I think we have to
> respect this.
>
> Benedikt
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move
> to
> > Java 7?
> > >
> > > That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
> > >>
> > >> Gary
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> > >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Marcelo
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
On 7 June 2016 at 18:11, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Sebb,
>
> sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 18:09 Uhr:
>
>> Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
>>
>> Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
>>
>> If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
>> unnecessary for the initial release.

                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>
> I think people have expressed in various ways that they don't want to work
> on projects which are stuck on dead Java version. I think we have to
> respect this.

I think you have misunderstood my point.

I'm not saying that the code needs to stay on Java 6 for future releases.

However, assuming that it is working OK on Java 6, it seems silly to
insist that the developers update it to use Java 7 *now*.

Especially since the code appears to be about ready for a release.

Changing to Java 7 now would require additional work which would delay
the release.

But by all means move to Java 7 for the next release if the developers
who are actually working on it agree that it is necessary.

> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move to
>> Java 7?
>> >
>> > That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>> >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Marcelo
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hello Sebb,

sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 19:27 Uhr:

> On 7 June 2016 at 18:11, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello Sebb,
> >
> > sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 18:09 Uhr:
> >
> >> Does the project *need* to use any Java7 features?
> >>
> >> Is it working OK now with Java 6 as the minimum?
> >>
> >> If the answers are No and Yes then moving to Java 7 seems to me to be
> >> unnecessary for the initial release.
>
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >
> > I think people have expressed in various ways that they don't want to
> work
> > on projects which are stuck on dead Java version. I think we have to
> > respect this.
>
> I think you have misunderstood my point.
>
> I'm not saying that the code needs to stay on Java 6 for future releases.
>
> However, assuming that it is working OK on Java 6, it seems silly to
> insist that the developers update it to use Java 7 *now*.
>
> Especially since the code appears to be about ready for a release.
>
> Changing to Java 7 now would require additional work which would delay
> the release.
>
> But by all means move to Java 7 for the next release if the developers
> who are actually working on it agree that it is necessary.
>

Nicely put. I think we're on the same site here.

Benedikt


>
> > Benedikt
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7 June 2016 at 16:49, Marcelo Vanzin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > I thought there was a discussion after the project was set up to move
> to
> >> Java 7?
> >> >
> >> > That being said I see that the pom still defines 1.6 as the target...
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java
> 6?
> >> >>
> >> >> Gary
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> >> >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >> >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> >> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> >> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> >> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Marcelo
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
>
>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?


You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
whatever they want.

Jochen

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

sebb-2-2
I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.

The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
updated to Java 7+.

This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
works on Java 6.
But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
of requiring a later version.

[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6

On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
>>
>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>
>
> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
> whatever they want.
>
> Jochen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Bernd Eckenfels
Hello,

IBM, SAP and HP also maintain/support Java 6 runtimes for still some time. The audience get smaller and we should not restrict developers to use/provide Java 8 features but if a component team is happy to start a new project with Java 6, why not... (especially since there are also Hadoop landscapes stuck with Java 6).

Gruss
Bernd

--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net

-----Original Message-----
From: sebb <[hidden email]>
To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Di., 07 Juni 2016 21:27
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.

The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
updated to Java 7+.

This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
works on Java 6.
But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
of requiring a later version.

[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6

On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
>>
>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>
>
> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
> whatever they want.
>
> Jochen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that version might still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to be added to Java so I don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If there is a bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a branch of the the release for that version of Java.  The web site should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the appropriate Java versions.

Ralph

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>
> The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
> I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
> updated to Java 7+.
>
> This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
> works on Java 6.
> But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
> of requiring a later version.
>
> [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
>>>
>>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
>>
>>
>> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
>> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
>> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
>> whatever they want.
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

garydgregory
Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.

Gary
On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should really
> mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that version might
> still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to be added to Java so I
> don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If there is a
> bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a branch of
> the the release for that version of Java.  The web site should clearly
> indicate which versions of the component support the appropriate Java
> versions.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> >
> > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
> > I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
> > updated to Java 7+.
> >
> > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
> > works on Java 6.
> > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
> > of requiring a later version.
> >
> > [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> >
> > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
> >>>
> >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6?
> >>
> >>
> >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
> >> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
> >> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
> >> whatever they want.
> >>
> >> Jochen
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Matt Sicker
I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not upgrading
anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new dependencies. Every
Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in legacy maintenance mode
(just like Java 6 itself).

On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>
> Gary
> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should really
> > mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that version might
> > still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to be added to Java
> so I
> > don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If there
> is a
> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a branch of
> > the the release for that version of Java.  The web site should clearly
> > indicate which versions of the component support the appropriate Java
> > versions.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > >
> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1]
> > > I think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet be
> > > updated to Java 7+.
> > >
> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code still
> > > works on Java 6.
> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and cons
> > > of requiring a later version.
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > >
> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni 2016
> > >>>
> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java
> 6?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than welcome to
> > >> use another version. OTOH, given our latest experiences: Is this
> > >> really someting, that we should care for? IMO, let the component have,
> > >> whatever they want.
> > >>
> > >> Jochen
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> 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]
> >
> >
>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Sun, Dapeng
Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and Matt for all your input.

How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.

Regards
Dapeng

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Sicker [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).

On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>
> Gary
> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I really don’t think the premier & extended support dates should
> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
> > version might still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to
> > be added to Java
> so I
> > don’t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
> > there
> is a
> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> > branch of the the release for that version of Java.  The web site
> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
> > appropriate Java versions.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> > >
> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> > >
> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
> > > still works on Java 6.
> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> > >
> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> > > <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
> > >>> 2016
> > >>>
> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
> > >>>> Java
> 6?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> > >>
> > >> Jochen
> > >>
> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> ---- 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]
> >
> >
>



--
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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Gangumalla, Uma
Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
be good idea IMO.

I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
(just a question)

Regards,
Uma

On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and Matt
>for all your input.
>
>How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
>release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
>JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
>
>Regards
>Dapeng
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Sicker [mailto:[hidden email]]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
>To: Commons Developers List
>Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>
>I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
>upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
>dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
>legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
>
>On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>>
>> Gary
>> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[hidden email]>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
>> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
>> > version might still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to
>> > be added to Java
>> so I
>> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
>> > there
>> is a
>> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
>> > branch of the the release for that version of Java.  The web site
>> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
>> > appropriate Java versions.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>> > >
>> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
>> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
>> > > be updated to Java 7+.
>> > >
>> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
>> > > still works on Java 6.
>> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
>> > > cons of requiring a later version.
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>> > >
>> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
>> > > <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
>> > >>> 2016
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
>> > >>>> Java
>> 6?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
>> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
>> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
>> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jochen
>> > >>
>> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> ---- 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]
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

garydgregory
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Gangumalla, Uma <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
> be good idea IMO.
>
> I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
> (just a question)
>

1.0 is 1.0. If we want an alpha, we must label is as such, for example
1.0-alpha1, 1.0-beta1. There is no 1.0 is an alpha and 1.1 is a "real"
release.

Gary

>
> Regards,
> Uma
>
> On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and Matt
> >for all your input.
> >
> >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
> >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
> >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
> >
> >Regards
> >Dapeng
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
> >To: Commons Developers List
> >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> >
> >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
> >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
> >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
> >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
> >
> >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[hidden email]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
> >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
> >> > version might still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to
> >> > be added to Java
> >> so I
> >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
> >> > there
> >> is a
> >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java.  The web site
> >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
> >> > appropriate Java versions.
> >> >
> >> > Ralph
> >> >
> >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
> >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
> >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> >> > >
> >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
> >> > > still works on Java 6.
> >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
> >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]
> >> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> >> > >
> >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> >> > > <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
> >> > >>> 2016
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
> >> > >>>> Java
> >> 6?
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
> >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Jochen
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >> ---- 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]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Gangumalla, Uma


On 6/14/16, 1:23 AM, "Gary Gregory" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Gangumalla, Uma
><[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
>> If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
>> be good idea IMO.
>>
>> I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
>> (just a question)
>>
>
>1.0 is 1.0. If we want an alpha, we must label is as such, for example
>1.0-alpha1, 1.0-beta1. There is no 1.0 is an alpha and 1.1 is a "real"
>release.

Yeah, right on naming.
What others think on that?

>
>Gary
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Uma
>>
>> On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
>>Matt
>> >for all your input.
>> >
>> >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
>> >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
>> >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >Dapeng
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
>> >To: Commons Developers List
>> >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>> >
>> >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
>> >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
>> >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
>> >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
>> >
>> >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6
>>updates.
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[hidden email]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
>> >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
>> >> > version might still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to
>> >> > be added to Java
>> >> so I
>> >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
>> >> > there
>> >> is a
>> >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
>> >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java.  The web site
>> >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
>> >> > appropriate Java versions.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ralph
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
>> >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
>> >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
>> >> > > still works on Java 6.
>> >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
>> >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > [1]
>> >> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
>> >> > > <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
>> >> > >>> 2016
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
>> >> > >>>> Java
>> >> 6?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
>> >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
>> >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
>> >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Jochen
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > >> ---- 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]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
><http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory


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

RE: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Sun, Dapeng
In reply to this post by Gangumalla, Uma
> Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should be good idea IMO.

Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK to 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.

Is there anyone have other opinions?

Regards
Dapeng

-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should be good idea IMO.

I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
(just a question)

Regards,
Uma

On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
>Matt for all your input.
>
>How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
>release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
>JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
>
>Regards
>Dapeng
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Sicker [mailto:[hidden email]]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
>To: Commons Developers List
>Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>
>I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
>upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
>dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
>legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
>
>On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
>>
>> Gary
>> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[hidden email]>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
>> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
>> > version might still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to
>> > be added to Java
>> so I
>> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
>> > there
>> is a
>> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
>> > branch of the the release for that version of Java.  The web site
>> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
>> > appropriate Java versions.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
>> > >
>> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
>> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
>> > > be updated to Java 7+.
>> > >
>> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
>> > > still works on Java 6.
>> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
>> > > cons of requiring a later version.
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
>> > >
>> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
>> > > <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
>> > >>> 2016
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
>> > >>>> Java
>> 6?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
>> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
>> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
>> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jochen
>> > >>
>> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> -
>> > >> ---- 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]
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>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: [crypto] On Java 6, really?

Stian Soiland-Reyes
+1 to JDK7 on crypto
On 14 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m., "Sun, Dapeng" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> > If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
> be good idea IMO.
>
> Thank Uma, I just checked there is no much changes on upgrading JDK to
> 1.7, I think we can upgrade before this release.
>
> Is there anyone have other opinions?
>
> Regards
> Dapeng
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:21 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
>
> Then next release(after 1.0.0) must be a major release you mean?
> If there are no potential users looking for JDK 1.6, dropping now should
> be good idea IMO.
>
> I also remembered that we wanted to mark 1.0.0 release as Alpha right?
> (just a question)
>
> Regards,
> Uma
>
> On 6/14/16, 12:27 AM, "Sun, Dapeng" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Thank Gary, Benedikt, Marcelo, sebb, James, Jochen, ecki, Ralph and
> >Matt for all your input.
> >
> >How about make a conservative decision: regarding the first
> >release(1.0.0), we keep the JDK version as 1.6, and we wouldn't support
> >JDK 1.6 for the releases after 1.0.0.
> >
> >Regards
> >Dapeng
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Matt Sicker [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:18 AM
> >To: Commons Developers List
> >Subject: Re: [crypto] On Java 6, really?
> >
> >I'd imagine that close to 100% of users who are on Java 6 are not
> >upgrading anything else, either, nor would they be adding in new
> >dependencies. Every Java 6 project I've come across lately has been in
> >legacy maintenance mode (just like Java 6 itself).
> >
> >On 7 June 2016 at 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Let's not forget that customers are paying Oracle to get Java 6 updates.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >> On Jun 7, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[hidden email]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> > I really don¹t think the premier & extended support dates should
> >> > really mean much, except as an indicator of how many users of that
> >> > version might still exist.  Basically, no new features are going to
> >> > be added to Java
> >> so I
> >> > don¹t think we should be targeting new features there either. If
> >> > there
> >> is a
> >> > bug that needs to be fixed it should be possible to do it on a
> >> > branch of the the release for that version of Java.  The web site
> >> > should clearly indicate which versions of the component support the
> >> > appropriate Java versions.
> >> >
> >> > Ralph
> >> >
> >> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:26 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I have just checked Oracle support for Java 6.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Support Life for Java 6 has been extended to Dec 2018 [1] I
> >> > > think this means that there are critical systems that cannot yet
> >> > > be updated to Java 7+.
> >> > >
> >> > > This does not mean that we should ensure that all Commons code
> >> > > still works on Java 6.
> >> > > But it should be taken into account when evaluating the pros and
> >> > > cons of requiring a later version.
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]
> >> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html#extended6
> >> > >
> >> > > On 7 June 2016 at 20:02, Jochen Wiedmann
> >> > > <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>> Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote on Tue., 7. Juni
> >> > >>> 2016
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like
> >> > >>>> Java
> >> 6?
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You are, of course, right, that the component is more than
> >> > >> welcome to use another version. OTOH, given our latest
> >> > >> experiences: Is this really someting, that we should care for?
> >> > >> IMO, let the component have, whatever they want.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Jochen
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >> -
> >> > >> ---- 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]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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]
>
>
12