I've not replied before, mostly because I am torn a little... On the one hand, I am fed up with supporting the CDC platform that has little interest, 1.5 is getting harder to support too.
On the other hand, I expect backports to older versions that I have to support being harder the more trunk changes. The recent cleaning up of suspicious and messy code might already make things harder...But I think moving forward is important too, and cleaning up "bad" or inefficient code might improve supportability in the future... I don't mind striving for a support of current jvm -2. However, in the future there might be compelling reasons to deviate, so I am hesitant to pin things down. How would you remove the jdbc3 javadoc without removing support? Myrna On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Rick Hillegas <[email protected]>wrote: > On 4/23/13 11:00 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote: > >> On 4/23/2013 8:37 AM, Mike Matrigali wrote: >> >>> On 4/23/2013 12:43 AM, Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: >>> >>>> Rick Hillegas <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>> It might be worthwhile to agree on a simple, general policy going >>>>> forward, something like this: >>>>> >>>>> A) We expect that a new feature release (branch) will support the >>>>> following Java versions: >>>>> >>>>> i) The current version being developed by the Open JDK community. This >>>>> is a stretch goal but one which I think we can hit. Let's call this >>>>> the CURRENT version. >>>>> >>>>> ii) CURRENT - 1 >>>>> >>>>> iii) CURRENT - 2 >>>>> >>>>> I am ok with no longer supporting java 5 and CDC but think that while >> current -2 is a reasonable goal, we should talk about it every time we >> drop a release. >> >> B) We expect that maintenance releases on a branch will continue to >>>>> support the same Java versions as the initial feature release cut from >>>>> that branch. >>>>> >>>>> Adopting this policy would result in the following changes to the >>>>> 10.11 trunk: >>>>> >>>>> I) Removing build support for Java 5 and CDC. >>>>> >>>>> II) Purging user doc references to Java 5 and CDC. >>>>> >>>>> III) Removing the JDBC 3 version of the public api. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So by this do you mean that DataSource classes like EmbeddedDataSource >> would no longer work and users would have to >> use EmbeddedDataSource40? I think that would be too harsh of a change as >> it would require most applications using data sources be changed in order >> to upgrade. >> >> Hi Kathey, > > I wasn't thinking of removing the old DataSources. I suppose we could > consider that for an 11.0 release. What I was recommending was that we > remove the JDBC 3 javadoc from our distributions. > > Thanks, > -Rick >
