On 5 November 2010 16:51, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>> As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5 >>> also? >>> >> >> +1! Quit living in the past. Of course, we then have to discuss the >> package name (and thus artifact id) change. :) >> > > It seems we had that discussion before and agreed it was OK to jump to Java > 5. http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@commons.apache.org/msg11705.html. I guess > it was never formally done. I had planned on doing some refactoring that I > quess I never got around to. > > Note that the minimum version for 1.0 was 1.3. Whoever started 2.0 changed > the minimum version to 1.4.
Are we referring to VFS or NET here? > > If package names change it will require a bit of work. I'm not sure there is > anyone using 1.0. All the questions on the dev list have been for 2.0 for > quite some time. Ditto - are we referring to VFS or NET here? I see no need to change package names if the API is compatible. > > Ralph > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
