While some might have some preferences on more recent Java versions, I haven't seen any objections to Java 8. Staying on Java 8 shouldn't really cause issues for anyone. Can we settle on Java 8 so this isn't an impediment to getting a new BeanUtils 2.0 release out the door? Josh.
-----Original Message----- From: Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:21 AM To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this is a phishing email, use the Report to Cybersecurity icon in Outlook. I'd prefer 17 for myself, but I know it might be slightly aggresive/radical . Anyway, if using versions equals/under 17, we can use Spring as a shield or something, as for people they wanna upgrade spring version they must upgrade their program to support jdk17 = = "don't blame us, Spring did the upgrade first" or something lol Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 于2024年9月17日周二 05:03写道： > I think that for now I am leaning towards staying on Java 8. > > Gary > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 3:42 AM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > for 90%+ normal user each version under which spring using be OK > > ________________________________ > > From: Richard Zowalla <rich...@zowalla.com> > > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:59:15 PM > > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0 > > > > My 2 cents are: BeanUtils is often used in the EE ecosystem EE 9.1 > targets > > 8/11, EE 10 targets 11/17, EE 11 targets 17 or higher. > > > > People are still doing the EE8 to 9.1/10 move (thanks to the name > change). > > So perhaps 11 or 17 would be a good fit for a baseline version. > > > > Gruß > > Richard > > > > Am 14. September 2024 00:00:48 MESZ schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > > >On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 22:01, Gary Gregory > > ><garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> The age does not really matter Elric, it's the percentage of > > >> people > > using a > > >> platform. See the links in my previous email. I think the highest > > >> we > > can go > > >> is 17, but that's just me. > > > > > >According to the 3rd link, Java version usage in 2024 is > > > > > >7 - 0.2% > > >8 - 28.8% > > >11 - 32.9% > > >17 - 35.4% > > >21 - 1.4% > > > > > >Here is the list showing the percentages that will no longer be > > >supported by choosing a particular version: > > > > > >7 - 0% > > >8 - 0.2% > > >11 - 29% > > >17 - 61.9% > > >21 - 97.3% > > > > > >Bigger is definitely not better here. > > > > > >> Gary > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024, 4:11 PM Elric <el...@melnib.one> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On 12/09/2024 19:21, Gary D. Gregory wrote: > > >> > > Hi All, > > >> > > > > >> > > Any thoughts on the minimum Java platform requirement for 2.0? > > >> > > > > >> > > Options are (IMO): 8, 11, 17, or 21. > > >> > > > >> > I have no vote, but I would go for 21. This will likely be a > decision > > >> > that will have an impact for a long time. 21 is 1 year old, 17 > > >> > is 3 years old, 11 is already already 6 years old, and 8 is > > >> > over 10 years > > old. > > >> > > > >> > People can continue to use 1.x if they are stuck on ancient > > >> > Java versions, but there should be no need to for any major > > >> > release of > any > > >> > commons project to stick to older versions. > > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > 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 > > > > > >
