Hi,

I looked but cannot find any official EOS statements or dates for Java 6
from IBM.

I found that Java 5 by IBM had a EOS(or perhaps EOL?) in 2009 - just like
Oracle did; which does not imply a commitment regarding Java 6, however.

Either way, I think it's fair to deprecate Java 6 in a future feature
release - I like Rick's proposal.

Was there some specific functionality that is of concern/interest here?

Myrna


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Rick Hillegas <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 8/27/14 5:32 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Now that DERBY-6213 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6213>
>> is in the books, is there any interest here in deprecating Java 6 in favor
>> of Java 7?
>>
>> Gary
>> --
>> E-Mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> |
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/
>> bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com <http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
>> >
>>
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
> Thanks for raising this issue, Gary. Oracle stopped creating public
> releases of Java 6 last year: http://www.oracle.com/
> technetwork/java/eol-135779.html. However, Oracle continues to provide
> new releases of Java 6 for customers who buy support contracts. I can't
> find any information on IBM's commitment to Java 6. Maybe one of the IBM
> engineers can comment.
>
> In the interests of reducing code/testing complexity, I'd be happy to
> deprecate support for Java 6. When we deprecate a platform, we generally
> produce one last feature release for it. It is that last release which
> announces the deprecation. If we followed that convention, then next year's
> 10.12 release would still support Java 6. The first release to drop Java 6
> support would be 10.13, due out in 2016 if we keep to our usual release
> cadence.
>
> What do other people think?
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>

Reply via email to