On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:57 AM, sebb wrote: > 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?
VFS - The 2.0 work was started before I got to Commons. > >> >> 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. VFS. To be honest, I've only glanced at 1.0. I'm not sure if they are compatible or not. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
