Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

Right now, I plan on doing milestone releases until we are OK with the API. I plan on the next release being 2.0.0-M2 and requiring Java 11, as we have now in git master. The majority of opinions in this thread has been for Java 17, so I'd like to go with Java 17 for 2.0.0-M3 and see how that

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

Good point. But then why stop at 11? Spring ripped the bandage off in their latest by requiring 17. On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 1:36 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > Based on my experience, once an app is at legacy status in an enterprise, > your are not allowed to touch it and even less update its

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

Based on my experience, once an app is at legacy status in an enterprise, your are not allowed to touch it and even less update its dependencies (except for critical security updates). A new major version of a library is out of scope anyway and especially in this case since it requires source

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

Libraries should be kept on the oldest safe (LTS) version forever, IMHO, to avoid stranding legacy services. On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 9:15 AM James Reeves wrote: > I'd very much prefer 11, unless 17 is necessary. I have a library that > currently depends on FileUpload 1.5, and only requires Java

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

For now git master is on Java 11. I plan on releasing 2.0.0-M2 within a couple of weeks. Gary On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 12:15 PM James Reeves wrote: > I'd very much prefer 11, unless 17 is necessary. I have a library that > currently depends on FileUpload 1.5, and only requires Java 8. For various

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

I'd very much prefer 11, unless 17 is necessary. I have a library that currently depends on FileUpload 1.5, and only requires Java 8. For various reasons, I've been very conservative with the required Java version. I was already planning to make the jump to Java 11, so if FileUpload 2.0.0 moves

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

+1 for 17 On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 12:43 PM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Le sam. 22 juil. 2023 à 11:00, Gary Gregory a > écrit : > > > Java 21 is not GA. > > > > FU neither and calendar looks like it can match. > > Main pro being to move to a more reactive programming at some point which > could

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

Le sam. 22 juil. 2023 à 11:00, Gary Gregory a écrit : > Java 21 is not GA. > FU neither and calendar looks like it can match. Main pro being to move to a more reactive programming at some point which could justify a 2.0 IMHO. > Gary > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 04:48 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO >

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

Java 21 is not GA. Gary On Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 04:48 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote: > I'd say compile low and run high. > So unless there is really something you need from Java 17 or 21, why not > compiling lower? > > It would open the release to be used more widely in my opinion. > > Now I agree

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

I'd say compile low and run high. So unless there is really something you need from Java 17 or 21, why not compiling lower? It would open the release to be used more widely in my opinion. Now I agree that making sure it runs on java 17 and 21 at least is great. Le ven. 21 juil. 2023, 18:40,

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

+1 for Java 17. Glavo On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:18 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > Now that 2.0.0-M1 is out the door, let's talk about Java platform > requirements. > > I propose that for 2.0.0, FileUpload be bumped from Java 8 to 11, if not > 17. > > If you are going to ask why, see my reply in the

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

+1 for java 17, requirement is java 21 as the new requirement for jakartaee, anything in between is already migrated or will not be migrated so 17 seems already low to me. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

From a spec view: Baseline for Jakarta EE 10 would be Java 11. Jakarta EE 9 is still Java 8 (namespace Change only) Gruß Richard Am 21. Juli 2023 18:10:48 MESZ schrieb Elliotte Rusty Harold : >Absolutely not Java 17. There are really big companies still on Java >11, and I have no idea how

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

Absolutely not Java 17. There are really big companies still on Java 11, and I have no idea how many smaller ones. There are many still on Java 8. Unless you actually **need** something from Java 11+ I wouldn't bother. On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:18 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > > Now that 2.0.0-M1

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

+1 for java17 :) On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 at 21:52, Mark Thomas wrote: > > On 21/07/2023 16:18, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Now that 2.0.0-M1 is out the door, let's talk about Java platform > > requirements. > > > > I propose that for 2.0.0, FileUpload be bumped from Java 8 to 11, if not 17. > > +1 for

Re: [FileUpload] Major version 2

On 21/07/2023 16:18, Gary Gregory wrote: Now that 2.0.0-M1 is out the door, let's talk about Java platform requirements. I propose that for 2.0.0, FileUpload be bumped from Java 8 to 11, if not 17. +1 for Java 17 Mark If you are going to ask why, see my reply in the [pool] thread

RE: [FileUpload] Major version 2

16:18 To: Commons Developers List Subject: [FileUpload] Major version 2 [**EXTERNAL E-MAIL**] Now that 2.0.0-M1 is out the door, let's talk about Java platform requirements. I propose that for 2.0.0, FileUpload be bumped from Java 8 to 11, if not 17. If you are going to ask why, see my reply

[FileUpload] Major version 2

Now that 2.0.0-M1 is out the door, let's talk about Java platform requirements. I propose that for 2.0.0, FileUpload be bumped from Java 8 to 11, if not 17. If you are going to ask why, see my reply in the [pool] thread (https://lists.apache.org/thread/ngyrssxndklltzkoqfqx4n780h4b5vwk) Gary