On 13 December 2011 14:25, 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).
These are two different things. The Pool 1.x line is legacy, and is itself effectively EOL. We should be getting Pool2 ready for use by new users, and leave legacy customers on 1.x as long as they need it. I don't believe we should be encouraging users onto Pool1; it is not possible to fix it. > Remember, java 1.6 is a few months away from EOL. Adopting it now is > hardly avant garde. Adopting Pool 2 is a better way forward for new users; existing users just want to be able to have bug fixes. > 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. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
