On 10/02/2012 16:20, sebb wrote: > On 10 February 2012 15:18, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 10/02/2012 14:41, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> In many cases the differences between Java 5 and 6 aren't noticeable. >>> If the project doesn't require anything from Java 6, why require it? >>> I'm sure there are quite a few places where it is still being used >>> despite the end of support. >> >> I think there are several reasons: >> - It strikes me as odd to release a new version of a component - such as >> pool2 - targeting a version of the JVM that is already effectively obsolete. > > So are you saying that if we release a new version of commons-logging > it should require Java 1.6? > That would be completely unnecessary.
I should have said major version. If we released commons-logging 2.x tomorrow then targeting Java 6 - or even Java 7 - makes sense. If we released 1.1.2 then I'd expect the minimum Java version to remain unchanged. >> - There are some platforms (I am thinking primarily of OSX) where >> getting ones hands on a Java 5 implementation requires a fair amount of >> jumping through hoops. [1] > > But surely Eclipse can be told to target Java 1.5 ? That would at > least deal with the compiler warnings. It can, but that doesn't handle API changes. Tomcat has had issues in the past with building with a later Java release that has broken stuff. That was JDBC again through that shouldn't affect pool. 2 >> - Pool2 feeds dbcp2 and Java6 includes JDBC4 which is not backwards >> compatible with JDBC3. DBCP is already jumping through hoops with >> 1.3/1.4 and targeting Java6 makes DBCP easier > > I don't see how problems with JDBC are relevant to Pool. Simply that DBCP is a significant user of pool and targeting Java 5 there is a pain. It makes sense to me to align the two but there is no requirement to do so. >> - Something we have seen in Tomcat is JVM bugs not being fixed in older >> releases. The fewer older JVM versions we target, the less likely we are >> to hit these sorts of bugs. Granted, I haven't seen any of this in >> Commons. Yet. > >> Some of these arguments are pool2 specific but overall, my preference is >> for targeting the lowest currently supported version of the JVM unless >> there is a compelling argument not to. > > Java 1.5 *is* still supported. You can find someone to support just about anything if you are prepared to pay for the privilege. I suspect that the majority of our users no longer have support for Java 5. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
