That makes some sense I guess. Spring 3.2 isn’t scheduled to be EOL until the 
end of 2016.

That said, you could easily create a branch if you wanted to for any support 
required for that.  But not having looked at the code yet I have no idea 
whether that is necessary. I know we had very compelling reasons to jump up to 
Java 7 for Log4j.

Ralph

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Eh... do you know how perversely conservative FM is? :) It's the
> coming FreeMarker 2.3.24 that will raise the minimum Java version from
> 1.4 to 5. Before that, 2.3.23, which was about 6 months ago, has
> raised it from 1.2(!) to 1.4.
> 
> (Just so we don't look crazy... why Java 5? There was nothing critical
> for us in 6 yet (OK, number rounding modes, but I just call that via
> some conditional linking). Also Spring 3.x requires Java 5, hence if
> we want 2.3.24 to be part of a 3.x maintenance release, it can't
> require any higher.)
> 
> 
> Sunday, October 25, 2015, 5:23:31 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
>> Frankly, I would have dropped support for servlet 2.3 a while ago. 
>> Same for Java 5. Heck Log4j just made the minimum version Java 7.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We will need to call some Servlet 2.4 API-s, and I can solve it
>>> reflection and such, and by complication the build.xml a bit further.
>>> I just wonder if it worths it. Here's a bit of Servlet history:
>>> 
>>> Servlet 2.3     August 2001     J2EE 1.3, J2SE 1.2 JSP 1.2
>>> Servlet 2.4     November 2003   J2EE 1.4, J2SE 1.3 JSP 2.0
>>> Servlet 2.5     September 2005  JavaEE 5, JavaSE 5 JSP 2.1
>>> 
>>> 2.3.24 has already raised minimum Java version to 5, and minimum JSP
>>> version to 2.0 (that's the pair of Servlet 2.4). These had to be done,
>>> pretty much. Requiring 2.4 is not a must have, but I wonder if keeping
>>> it worths the complication...
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 


Reply via email to