On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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. > No one has veto power here. We're all reasonable folks. Well, I'd like to think I am. Most of us are passionate and opinionated. That a good thing. If you work towards a .jexl3 Java 6 release and get the votes to get an RC out, I won't and can't stop you. Actually, I'm all for it :) Gary > ... > > 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 > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
