I'm confused about one thing here. Sure, you can't use javac in 9 to compile for 5, but can't java in 9 still run class files compiled against 5? If you couldn't run older java classes anymore, then I don't know why Oracle continues to maintain backward compatibility in places that are annoying.
On 5 June 2017 at 11:54, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > This whole discussion has me really confused. According to > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history> the free version of > Java 5 reached end-of-life in 2009 and Oracle's supported version reached > end-of-life in 2015. https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/ > <https://developer.ibm.com/javasdk/support/lifecycle/> doesn’t even show > Java 5 any more but https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/ > forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464 < > https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/ > forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014807464> indicates that > it also was dropped in 2015. > > So why are we discussing support for Java 1.5 when not even the vendors > who ship it support it? > > Ralph > > > > On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann < > jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com <mailto:jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com>> > > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> I'd like us to be able to push out a new release with minimal changes > >>>> at any given time. If we have, for example, 1.6 as the target, and the > >>>> previous > >>>> release had 1.5 as the target, then we'd loose that ability, IMO. > >>>> (Think security releases.We've had quite a few in the past.) > >>> > >>> Understood, but I'm not sure why you feel the lack of a 1.6 release > >>> would prevent a security release. > >>> Surely we could just apply the fixes to the previously released code > >>> and change to 1.6 at the same time? > >> > >> Because the result clearly be binary incompatible to its predecessor, > >> and that's the whole point of such an emergency release. We'd want a > >> drop-in replacement. > >> > > > > If someone wants a fix for something that runs on 1.5, they are welcome > to > > provide a PR. I do not think we need to handcuff ourselves to Java 5. If > > your runtime is stuck on Java 5, your likely to have other more pressing > > security issues to address... > > > > Gary > > > >> > >> Jochen > >> > >> > >> -- > >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > >> > >> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ < > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/> > >> evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org <mailto: > dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org <mailto: > dev-h...@commons.apache.org> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
