regarding IO-597

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

regarding IO-597

Arvind Venugopal
Hello,

This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has to be
taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which would be
breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this library.

Thanks
Arvind
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597]

garydgregory
I am OK with updating Commons IO to Java 8 for release 2.7.

Others?

Gary

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Arvind Venugopal <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has to be
> taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which would be
> breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this
> library.
>
> Thanks
> Arvind
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597]

John Patrick
Personally as a consumer/user I wouldn't expect a minor update to bump
the min java version required, I would expect a major version number
bump.

Also I think all commons projects should be bumped to Java 8 asap, as
those on java 5, 6 or 7 are probably happy with the current versions
and would only be upgrading for bug fixes and security reasons.

Java 8 was released nearly 5 years ago, Java 7 was released 8 years
ago, people complained about Java being slow, now Java has become
rapid it seams the frameworks need to speed up.

Just my view after coding Java for 20 years.

John



On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I am OK with updating Commons IO to Java 8 for release 2.7.
>
> Others?
>
> Gary
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Arvind Venugopal <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has to be
> > taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which would be
> > breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this
> > library.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Arvind
> >

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597]

sebb-2-2
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 15:42, John Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Personally as a consumer/user I wouldn't expect a minor update to bump
> the min java version required, I would expect a major version number
> bump.
>
> Also I think all commons projects should be bumped to Java 8 asap, as
> those on java 5, 6 or 7 are probably happy with the current versions
> and would only be upgrading for bug fixes and security reasons.

However, if a commons component updates to Java 8 and then needs a bug
fix, all those on Java 7 or below who need the bug fix will be forced
to update Java as well as updating the commons component.
Is that such a good idea?

> Java 8 was released nearly 5 years ago, Java 7 was released 8 years
> ago, people complained about Java being slow, now Java has become
> rapid it seams the frameworks need to speed up.

Huh?

If people upgrade to the latest (faster) version of Java, they can
still use Commons components that have an earlier minimum version.

So I don't see how changing the minimum version of Java for a Commons
component helps here.

> Just my view after coding Java for 20 years.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I am OK with updating Commons IO to Java 8 for release 2.7.
> >
> > Others?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Arvind Venugopal <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has to be
> > > taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which would be
> > > breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this
> > > library.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Arvind
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597]

Matt Sicker
I'd be in favor of upgrading to Java 8. It would certainly make
porting my Jenkins deleteRecursive family of methods back upstream
easier (lambdas mainly). It would also allow for adding functional
APIs for IO (which may also require some checked versions of
java.util.function).

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 16:37, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 15:42, John Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Personally as a consumer/user I wouldn't expect a minor update to bump
> > the min java version required, I would expect a major version number
> > bump.
> >
> > Also I think all commons projects should be bumped to Java 8 asap, as
> > those on java 5, 6 or 7 are probably happy with the current versions
> > and would only be upgrading for bug fixes and security reasons.
>
> However, if a commons component updates to Java 8 and then needs a bug
> fix, all those on Java 7 or below who need the bug fix will be forced
> to update Java as well as updating the commons component.
> Is that such a good idea?
>
> > Java 8 was released nearly 5 years ago, Java 7 was released 8 years
> > ago, people complained about Java being slow, now Java has become
> > rapid it seams the frameworks need to speed up.
>
> Huh?
>
> If people upgrade to the latest (faster) version of Java, they can
> still use Commons components that have an earlier minimum version.
>
> So I don't see how changing the minimum version of Java for a Commons
> component helps here.
>
> > Just my view after coding Java for 20 years.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am OK with updating Commons IO to Java 8 for release 2.7.
> > >
> > > Others?
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Arvind Venugopal <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has to be
> > > > taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which would be
> > > > breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this
> > > > library.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Arvind
> > > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: [IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597]

garydgregory
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:30 AM Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd be in favor of upgrading to Java 8. It would certainly make
> porting my Jenkins deleteRecursive family of methods back upstream
> easier (lambdas mainly). It would also allow for adding functional
> APIs for IO (which may also require some checked versions of
> java.util.function).
>

The question for me becomes: should we release 2.7 now with Java 7 or just
switch to Java 8 and release 2.7 when we get around to it. This issue is
availability of a release manager. For me, switching to Java 8 now is OK.

Gary


>
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 16:37, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 15:42, John Patrick <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally as a consumer/user I wouldn't expect a minor update to bump
> > > the min java version required, I would expect a major version number
> > > bump.
> > >
> > > Also I think all commons projects should be bumped to Java 8 asap, as
> > > those on java 5, 6 or 7 are probably happy with the current versions
> > > and would only be upgrading for bug fixes and security reasons.
> >
> > However, if a commons component updates to Java 8 and then needs a bug
> > fix, all those on Java 7 or below who need the bug fix will be forced
> > to update Java as well as updating the commons component.
> > Is that such a good idea?
> >
> > > Java 8 was released nearly 5 years ago, Java 7 was released 8 years
> > > ago, people complained about Java being slow, now Java has become
> > > rapid it seams the frameworks need to speed up.
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > If people upgrade to the latest (faster) version of Java, they can
> > still use Commons components that have an earlier minimum version.
> >
> > So I don't see how changing the minimum version of Java for a Commons
> > component helps here.
> >
> > > Just my view after coding Java for 20 years.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am OK with updating Commons IO to Java 8 for release 2.7.
> > > >
> > > > Others?
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Arvind Venugopal <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has
> to be
> > > > > taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which
> would be
> > > > > breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this
> > > > > library.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Arvind
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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: [IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597]

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Matt Sicker
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 16:30, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'd be in favor of upgrading to Java 8. It would certainly make
> porting my Jenkins deleteRecursive family of methods back upstream
> easier (lambdas mainly). It would also allow for adding functional
> APIs for IO (which may also require some checked versions of
> java.util.function).

That's a separate issue: at some point it will probably be
advantageous to upgrade Java version for a given project.

However upgrading has a downside, so should not be undertaken unless
there is a clear advantage.

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 16:37, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 15:42, John Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally as a consumer/user I wouldn't expect a minor update to bump
> > > the min java version required, I would expect a major version number
> > > bump.
> > >
> > > Also I think all commons projects should be bumped to Java 8 asap, as
> > > those on java 5, 6 or 7 are probably happy with the current versions
> > > and would only be upgrading for bug fixes and security reasons.
> >
> > However, if a commons component updates to Java 8 and then needs a bug
> > fix, all those on Java 7 or below who need the bug fix will be forced
> > to update Java as well as updating the commons component.
> > Is that such a good idea?
> >
> > > Java 8 was released nearly 5 years ago, Java 7 was released 8 years
> > > ago, people complained about Java being slow, now Java has become
> > > rapid it seams the frameworks need to speed up.
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > If people upgrade to the latest (faster) version of Java, they can
> > still use Commons components that have an earlier minimum version.
> >
> > So I don't see how changing the minimum version of Java for a Commons
> > component helps here.
> >
> > > Just my view after coding Java for 20 years.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am OK with updating Commons IO to Java 8 for release 2.7.
> > > >
> > > > Others?
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Arvind Venugopal <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has to be
> > > > > taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which would be
> > > > > breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this
> > > > > library.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Arvind
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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: [IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597]

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by garydgregory
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 15:14, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:30 AM Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'd be in favor of upgrading to Java 8. It would certainly make
> > porting my Jenkins deleteRecursive family of methods back upstream
> > easier (lambdas mainly). It would also allow for adding functional
> > APIs for IO (which may also require some checked versions of
> > java.util.function).
> >
>
> The question for me becomes: should we release 2.7 now with Java 7 or just
> switch to Java 8 and release 2.7 when we get around to it. This issue is
> availability of a release manager. For me, switching to Java 8 now is OK.

Unless there is a clear need to switch to Java 8, why force it on
downstream users who may not be ready to upgrade?

> Gary
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 16:37, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 15:42, John Patrick <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Personally as a consumer/user I wouldn't expect a minor update to bump
> > > > the min java version required, I would expect a major version number
> > > > bump.
> > > >
> > > > Also I think all commons projects should be bumped to Java 8 asap, as
> > > > those on java 5, 6 or 7 are probably happy with the current versions
> > > > and would only be upgrading for bug fixes and security reasons.
> > >
> > > However, if a commons component updates to Java 8 and then needs a bug
> > > fix, all those on Java 7 or below who need the bug fix will be forced
> > > to update Java as well as updating the commons component.
> > > Is that such a good idea?
> > >
> > > > Java 8 was released nearly 5 years ago, Java 7 was released 8 years
> > > > ago, people complained about Java being slow, now Java has become
> > > > rapid it seams the frameworks need to speed up.
> > >
> > > Huh?
> > >
> > > If people upgrade to the latest (faster) version of Java, they can
> > > still use Commons components that have an earlier minimum version.
> > >
> > > So I don't see how changing the minimum version of Java for a Commons
> > > component helps here.
> > >
> > > > Just my view after coding Java for 20 years.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am OK with updating Commons IO to Java 8 for release 2.7.
> > > > >
> > > > > Others?
> > > > >
> > > > > Gary
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Arvind Venugopal <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is regarding the JIRA issue IO-597. I am not sure if this has
> > to be
> > > > > > taken up because the fix for this bug would need Java 8 which
> > would be
> > > > > > breaking all existing code(using Java 7 or earlier) which uses this
> > > > > > library.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Arvind
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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: [IO] Update to Java 8 [WAS Re: regarding IO-597]

Matt Sicker
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 10:52, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Unless there is a clear need to switch to Java 8, why force it on
> downstream users who may not be ready to upgrade?

I consider this to be a delicate balance between making projects
attractive to contributors and keeping compatibility with super old
versions of things. Java 8 itself is already starting to get outdated
relatively speaking compared with recent development there, though
that's less of a pressing issue IMO.

--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>

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