On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Frankly, I think that the lack of generics in commons components drives > away more users than having java 1.4 compatibility retains. > > I personally won't incorporate any non-genericized components if I can help > it. There are a few exceptions where I might like math libraries (oh wait, > commons-math already uses generics). > > Remember, java 1.6 is a few months away from EOL. Adopting it now is > hardly avant garde.
+1 We are always finding reasons why we should NOT progress. There are people around who want to build on some "new stuff" as generics (please mind the irony here) and they are usually not allowed because of binary compatibility, an elder release supports jdk 1.3 (!) or something else. This is not do-cracy at all, because the do'ers cannot do. Instead of always blocking new ideas and patches (I have heard the first generics patch is one year old!) we should find some kind of process how we handle such questions: 1) support for elder commons lib versions 2) EOL life for elder commons versions 3) how to incoorperate new and breaking changes After all I am not involved in pool. But I think these questions/problems are commons global. Christian > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Right now, I'm doing the best I can do for [pool1] and generics. I'll >> support the code the same way I support any Commons code, when I take the >> time to do so. If P1.6 is as simple as /only/ adding generics, then I >> predict we'll see a good adoption rate. >> -- 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
