On 7/12/14, 6:19 AM, Gilles wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:52:22 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 6/20/14, 9:56 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >>> On 06/20/2014 05:30 PM, Gilles wrote: >>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:57:41 +0200, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >>>>> On 20 Jun 2014 16:37, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:18:08 +0200, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >>>>>>> Java 5 is already eol. Anybody still using it is certainly in >>>>>>> maintenance >>>>>>> mode thus adding now a feature that is available in java 6 >>>>>>> does not >>>>>>> make >>>>>>> any sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> This a strong statement in a forum where it has _always_ been >>>>>> indicated that no post-Java-5 feature could be used. >>>>> These two are completely different things. >>>>> >>>>> Not using more recent java features was done in order to still >>>>> support >>>>> users that are stuck with java 5 but want/have to use commons. >>>>> >>>>> Duplicating java 6 features in 2014 is pointless. What is the >>>>> expected >>>>> userbase of this feature? >>>> Commons Math itself. And this was the real purpose of >>>> duplicating Java 6: >>>> no user ever asked for those methods in MathArrays. They were >>>> implemented >>>> for the sole reason that CM could not contain calls to methods >>>> not yet >>>> available in Java 5. [See the "pom.xml" of Commons Math.] >>>> >>>>> New users will certainly have adopted more recent >>>>> versions of java and anybody still using java 5 and having a >>>>> need for >>>>> this >>>>> will hopefully have implemented it already in his own codebase. >>>> This is completely unrelated to the issue. >>> Looking at the original JIRA issue (MATH-1130) it was not clear >>> that >>> this is actually related to MATH-1120 and sounded like a user >>> request to >>> support this functionality. >>> >>> As this functionality is used by Commons Math itself the >>> inclusion is of >>> course ok. >>> >>> Regarding the supported versions: >>> >>> * for the 3.x branch I would stick with java 5 >>> * for the new 4.x branch I would at least switch to java 7 >> >> +1 >> Phil > > Do we all agree? > > Why not go all the way and switching to Java 8? Any downside?
Are the Java 8 features that we actually need for 4.x? I am not aware of any. Making the javadoc thingy happy should not force a dependency on Java 8. Phil > > > Gilles > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
