It's been mentioned before for a next gen VFS, a Java 7 only project obviously.
Gary On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:45, James Ring <s...@jdns.org> wrote: > Has anybody looked at the Java 7 NIO File API? > > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/nio/file/package-summary.html > > I think VFS should be able to make great contributions to that by > porting filesystem implementations to it. > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM, garydgregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> (posting from nabble as I've lost the thread in my inbox) >> >> I want to revive using Java 6 this for trunk. Java 5 is dead, no only is >> forcing projects to update to the trunk stream from VFS 2.0. >> >> In addition to the list below: >> >> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the >> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version. >> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to >> patch. >> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like >> commons-io 2.3. >> >> *I want to use Java 6 @Override on more methods which I find extremely >> helpful.* >> >> Thank you, >> Gary >> >> -- >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed >>> prior to the change. A >> >> >> This has been backed out of SVN for now. >> >> (from the JIRA:) >> >> Whys: >> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the >> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version. >> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to >> patch. >> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like >> commons-io 2.3. >> >> Gary >> >> >>> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires >>> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary >>> before asking him to revert it. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>>> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older >>>>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked >>>>> as VFS-415. >>>> >>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much >>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use >>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't >>> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users >>> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility. >>>> >>>> /Andreas >>>> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VFS-Update-VFS-trunk-to-Java-6-tp4629464p4635119.html >> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
