On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think all that Sebastian is saying is something like "if you can >>> create your new, cool API and the only things you really miss from >>> Java 6 are @Override on interface implementation methods and >>> ServiceLoader, for example, maybe it's worth that tiny bit of extra >>> pain to reach that slightly larger audience." We all feel frustrated >>> from time to time working in the community setting; I've been there >>> myself, but I don't think Seb is just trying to be a killjoy just for >>> the hell of it. >> >> Yes, you might be right on this interpretation. >> >> As long as there a volunteers for maintaining jexl2 on j5 setting, I >> am fine with keeping j5 for it. To be clear, I am not saying we kill >> jexl2 today or quit jdk5 support for jexl2. >> >> But we should not make it a policy to start a new, major version with >> the lowest JDK version possible when the actual maintainers would like >> to use a current platform - this needs no discussion imho, they should >> simply do as they please. > > I agree that the developers of a component should do as they > [collectively] please. However, in the case of [jexl] it appears that > Seb is interested in the development of this component. He may > continue to be interested in the development of a v3.x of [jexl]. Now > we don't have as clear-cut a case of do-ocracy and henrib just doing > what he pleases anymore, because he has to do instead "as near as he > can get to what he pleases while still functioning in a > consensus-based manner." A possible sequence of events: > > - henrib proposes that [jexl] include feature X, using feature Y > from Java 6, thus justifying this minimum version. Assuming the > community doesn't vote down the feature on its own merits, Java 6 it > is. > - sebb can then come along say, hey, I know we agreed on feature X, > but I can put in 4 hours of work or create a new Commons component to > reimplement feature Y, and now Java 5 users can also benefit from > [jexl] 3! > > Assuming someone else is willing to do the *actual* work required to > keep Java 5 compatibility, are you really going to spend time and > energy fighting for interface @Overrides? Obviously there would > probably be some point at which Seb in this example would say, sure, I > could reimplement feature Y, but it's going to take ten hours, twenty > hours. Not worth it; have your Java 6! > > This is the way I see our community as having to function.
With just 2 committers on a component, is not really easy to get an consens when both have different opinions. What now? Henri needs to wait until Sebb gives up java5. ... Christian > > Matt > >> >> Cheers >> >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5 December 2011 18:10, henrib <hen...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> sebb-2-2 wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My view is that while there is still a need for software to be able to >>>>>>> run on Java 1.5, we should not insist on requiring a minimum of >>>>>>> 1.6.*unless* there is good technical reason for doing so. >>>>>>> >>>>>> But you don't consider a good (technical) reason the fact that the >>>>>> contributor can not/does not want to incur the cost of maintaining a JDK >>>>>> 1.5 >>>>>> on its dev platforms to be able to contribute to newer versions... >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't consider that a valid reason on its own. >>>> >>>> Committing should be fun. If one does not want to support JDK 1.5 he >>>> goes away. Henri seems as he does not want and would like to put >>>> effort in a more modern environment. In addition, how many people can >>>> you attract with a JDK 1.5 version to contribute? For me this is valid >>>> reason. >>>> >>>>>> And no-one is stating that Java 1.5 is not in used in production >>>>>> somewhere; >>>>>> but IMHO, these are not the ones that will be JEXL3 users, especially >>>>>> since >>>>>> they have 2.1 (soon). >>>>> >>>>>> Anyway and beyond the point, my advice to 1.5 users is that before >>>>>> trying to >>>>>> use "new" versions of libraries, migrating away from an unsupported/EOLed >>>>>> platform should be their priority. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, ideally everyone would now be using Java 6 and Windows users >>>>> should all upgrade to Windows 7 etc. >>>>> >>>>> But that is a separate issue. >>>> >>>> No it is not. >>>> >>>> It seems you ignore my idea on having jexl2 in maintenance mode, but >>>> this is actually what MS did with Win XP. Now they don't support it. I >>>> ask myself, why do we need to support outdated jdks until all >>>> committers are gone away or the library is the outdated people get >>>> some fresher stuff (Collections vs Guava)? >>>> >>>> If Henri is the opinion that people should use jdk6 he should be >>>> allowed to create such a version and call it Jexl3. >>>> If you want to keep a jdk5 version, you are of course allowed to >>>> support that one. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Christian >>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://www.grobmeier.de >>>> https://www.timeandbill.de >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.grobmeier.de >> https://www.timeandbill.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
