My idea was that > 90% of the potential users will use Java 6+, thus it made sense to me, but of course we can change it and wait till we move to Java 6 ourselves.
Thomas On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:10 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 April 2013 21:30, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 04/21/2013 09:20 PM, sebb wrote: > > > On 21 April 2013 16:21, <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Author: tn > > >> Date: Sun Apr 21 15:21:45 2013 > > >> New Revision: 1470311 > > >> > > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1470311 > > >> Log: > > >> Suppress deprecation warnings for ArrayStack usage. > > >> > > >> > > > Surely the code should use whatever the replacement is? > > > > I deprecated ArrayStack as it is obsoleted by the Deque interface of > > Java 6. As we still target Java 5 for collections, I decided to keep it, > > as there is no other non-synchronized LIFO stack available (unless you > > use a plain LinkedList). > > > > But we could also decide to target Java 6 for collections 4? > > > > > Would it not be better to leave the deprecation until the code actually > needs Java 6? > > There's nothing Java 5 users can do about the deprecation, so it's > currently just noise. > > Thomas > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > >
