I've updated the trunk branch to have version 6.0.0-SNAPSHOT and set the min 
Java version to 11. This is just easier than than jumping straight to 17. If 
noone objects, i will raise the min Java version to 17 in the coming days or 
weeks.


On 2025/11/08 09:05:27 PJ Fanning wrote:
> Private classes and methods can be removed at any time.
> 
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 at 03:54, axh <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, agreed, but this only applies to public and protected classes and 
> > methods, I assume?
> >
> > > Am 07.11.2025 um 12:36 schrieb PJ Fanning <[email protected]>:
> > >
> > > Based on semver, we should not remove any code that has not previously
> > > been deprecated.
> > > We have `@Removal` tags on much of our deprecated code so we observe
> > > these - that is we shouldn't delete any deprecated methods with
> > > removal set for POI 7.
> > > I have no problem with deprecating code that no longer seems needed -
> > > but I would object to removing it without deprecating it first.
> > >
> > > There are multiple jars that we use that don't have proper module-info
> > > setups. It isn't just SparseBitSet.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2025 at 03:17, axh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> once 5.5.0 is released, I think we should decide what our targets are 
> > >> for 6.0. I have a list with things I'd like to see (and would like to 
> > >> implement):
> > >>
> > >> - raise the baseline JDK to 17
> > >> - remove obsolete code and utility classes not needed anymore and 
> > >> replace with standard JDK 17 fearures
> > >> - modernize the code base
> > >> - solve the last remaining JPMS compatibility problems, namely 
> > >> SparseBitSet not fully supporting the module system (uses an automatic 
> > >> module name) by either removing the dependency on 
> > >> com.zaxxer.sparsebitset or getting the author to add a real 
> > >> module-info.java to his project (honestly, I have very little hope for 
> > >> that to happen - the maintainer seems quite oblivious to the fact that 
> > >> automatic module names make life hard for people using jlkink). We could 
> > >> use another sparse BitSet implementation, fork the project, copy the 
> > >> source or change the POI code to not use a bitset at all.
> > >>
> > >> What are your thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> Axel
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to