a-1-5-tt4176593.html
Cheers,
Henrib
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/all-Java-5-vs-6-tp4376289p4378518.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsu
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:38 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> I'd have thought they'd be fine.
>>
>> A Java6 user using 1.1 upgrading to 1.2 would be able to drop it in.
>>
>> A Java5 user wouldn't, but that's dropping support not binary
>> i
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> I'd have thought they'd be fine.
>
> A Java6 user using 1.1 upgrading to 1.2 would be able to drop it in.
>
> A Java5 user wouldn't, but that's dropping support not binary incompatibility.
>
So, would any new features and bug fixes for 1.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:45 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> I don't see why we would have to wait on major versions for updates.
>>
>
> Well, if we compile foo-1.1 with Java 5 and then compile foo-1.2 with
> Java 6 (assuming we don't target 1.5
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> I don't see why we would have to wait on major versions for updates.
>
Well, if we compile foo-1.1 with Java 5 and then compile foo-1.2 with
Java 6 (assuming we don't target 1.5 on the compile), doesn't that
make them effectively binary inco
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 February 2012 02:23, James Carman wrote:
>> I am +1 to allowing new major version releases to go to Java 6. Heck,
>> I'm +1 to them choosing to jump straight to Java 7. I don't think we
>> should require it or anything, though.
>
> The Common
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 bei
On 10/02/2012 16:20, sebb wrote:
> On 10 February 2012 15:18, 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 quit
Hi *,
I am in the situation where 1.6 would be preferred (and that's why I
expressed my positive feeling on switching to JDK6): for Digester 3 I
had to revert the initial import of the Annotations Processor, because
still using Java5 com.sun.* APT APIs - not present at least in our
Continuum JVM -
On 10 February 2012 15:18, 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
On 10 February 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.
AIUI
+1 for targeting Java 6 on new releases...
Bill-
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:18 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?
> >
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 ar
Le 10/02/2012 15:41, Ralph Goers a écrit :
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.
In short, if th
Le 10/02/2012 14:51, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Hi All,
>
> [pool2] just went from Java 5 to Java 6 because Java 5 requires paid-for
> support from Oracle.
>
> How does the ML feel about moving projects that are now on Java 5 to Java 6?
I think it would be a good thing. Now Java 5 seems rather out
15 matches
Mail list logo
