> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com > <mailto:jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility >> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >> >> >> I think we should adopt Java 9’s multi-release jars [1] as standard >> practice. While this won’t let us update our APIs without breaking >> compatibility (which may still be necessary), it will allow us to >> leverage some features in newer versions of Java without worrying >> about breaking backward compatibility. >> >> Strong disagreement. Java 9 is not even out, and I heard noone express >> any desire to *use* these beasts. In other words: We'd serve a >> non-existing demand. That can't help anyone, >> in particular not ourselves. >> > > Yeah, it seems a little early to jump on that bandwagon. > > I'd rather keep a mainline of development of new releases on a recent JRE > like Java 7 or 8 and let people who really want older JREs maintain > branches. >
Gary, your response seems at odds with what I am saying. I’m not talking about supporting Java 6. What I am suggesting is that this feature in Java 9 will let you take advantage of features in Java 8 or 9 while still being able to have the same jar run in Java 7. In other words your can have a project where the Maven is told the target runtime is Java 7 but can take advantage of features in Java 8 or 9. You don’t have to delay taking advantage of features just because you aren’t ready to abandon your Java 7 (or 8 when that is relevant) users. Ralph
