[vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

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

[vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

Mario Ivankovits
Hi!

Since it is not that easy to get in touch with a jdk 1.3 (or I tried not
hard enough ;-) ) I'd like to ask if everyone is fine to start VFS 2
with jdk1.5?

As long as no other development need requires it to enhance the VFS 2
api I do not plan to introduce generics yet (I don't see that many
places for this in VFS), though sticking with jdk 1.3 seems uncool, no? ;-)

Seriously, it should really be the right time to leave jdk 1.3 behind.
Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.

If required, JDK 1.4 will do the trick too, though, this is EOL with
October 2008 too.

[ ] Go on with JDK 1.5
[ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
[ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:

Ciao,
Mario


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

Filip Defoort
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Mario Ivankovits <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [ X] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
>

Cheers,
- Filip

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Mario Ivankovits
On 23/05/2008, Mario Ivankovits <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>  Since it is not that easy to get in touch with a jdk 1.3 (or I tried not
> hard enough ;-) ) I'd like to ask if everyone is fine to start VFS 2 with
> jdk1.5?
>

It's easy enough to get 1.3 from java.sun.com ... I also got 1.2 and
1.1 from there recently.

>  As long as no other development need requires it to enhance the VFS 2 api I
> do not plan to introduce generics yet (I don't see that many places for this
> in VFS), though sticking with jdk 1.3 seems uncool, no? ;-)
>
>  Seriously, it should really be the right time to leave jdk 1.3 behind.

OK.

>  Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
> rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.

Not sure I understand why the API needs to change at all.

>  If required, JDK 1.4 will do the trick too, though, this is EOL with
> October 2008 too.

>  [ ] Go on with JDK 1.5
>  [X] Go on with JDK 1.4
>  [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
>
>  Ciao,
>  Mario
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

Mario Ivankovits
Hi!
> It's easy enough to get 1.3 from java.sun.com ... I also got 1.2 and
> 1.1 from there recently.
>  
Ah, yes, now I found it too, it's in archive.

>>  Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
>> rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.
>>    
>
> Not sure I understand why the API needs to change at all.
>  
Yepp, it is also the plan. I just don't wanted to put anything in stone yet.

Ciao,
Mario


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by Mario Ivankovits
 [X] Go on with JDK 1.5

Niall

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Mario Ivankovits <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Since it is not that easy to get in touch with a jdk 1.3 (or I tried not
> hard enough ;-) ) I'd like to ask if everyone is fine to start VFS 2 with
> jdk1.5?
>
> As long as no other development need requires it to enhance the VFS 2 api I
> do not plan to introduce generics yet (I don't see that many places for this
> in VFS), though sticking with jdk 1.3 seems uncool, no? ;-)
>
> Seriously, it should really be the right time to leave jdk 1.3 behind.
> Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
> rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.
>
> If required, JDK 1.4 will do the trick too, though, this is EOL with October
> 2008 too.
>
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
>
> Ciao,
> Mario

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

James Carman
In reply to this post by Mario Ivankovits
Here's my vote.  I still think we should come up with a standardized
plan for when we change package names.  There are different situations
that we need to consider:

1.  Jumping JDK/language versions.
2.  API Incompatibility
3.  Serialization incompatibility.


[X] Go on with JDK 1.5
[  ] Go on with JDK 1.4
[ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

Luc Maisonobe
In reply to this post by Mario Ivankovits
+1 for JDK 1.5

Luc

Mario Ivankovits a écrit :

> Hi!
>
> Since it is not that easy to get in touch with a jdk 1.3 (or I tried not
> hard enough ;-) ) I'd like to ask if everyone is fine to start VFS 2
> with jdk1.5?
>
> As long as no other development need requires it to enhance the VFS 2
> api I do not plan to introduce generics yet (I don't see that many
> places for this in VFS), though sticking with jdk 1.3 seems uncool, no? ;-)
>
> Seriously, it should really be the right time to leave jdk 1.3 behind.
> Since the API might not drastically change it should not be required to
> rename the package to vfs5 or vfs2 or whatever.
>
> If required, JDK 1.4 will do the trick too, though, this is EOL with
> October 2008 too.
>
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

Jörg Schaible-2
In reply to this post by Mario Ivankovits
> [X] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:

- Jörg

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [vote][vfs] set minimum java version to 1.5

Gary Gregory
In reply to this post by Mario Ivankovits
> [X] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:


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