On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Mark Thomas 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. > - 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] > - 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 > - 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. >
I don't think any of your examples negates my recommendation. It sounds like you have a proper justification for using Java 6 for Pool2. I disagree that just because free support is no longer available for Java 5 that that means it still isn't being used and developed against. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
