[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-747?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14168900#comment-14168900
]
Adrian Cole commented on JCLOUDS-747:
-------------------------------------
I think we should move the "rollback java 7" topic back to JCLOUDS-652, and
focus this on the android use case.
With regards to users requests there are no-brainers such as portably accessing
storage.
Even without searching pre-ASF, we can ask those who have tried jclouds on
android why they were, including the mail thread that started this issue.
http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=jclouds%20android
Let's move this conversation towards the users, and remember that few users are
even on the jclouds lists anymore, much less follow jclouds on twitter. The
fact that we've gotten a few requests this year on android despite that is a
signal that we should at least pay attention.
> Determine level of android support and how to ensure we keep it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-747
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-747
> Project: jclouds
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: jclouds-core
> Reporter: Adrian Cole
>
> One of the knock-on effects of moving on is tracking how we deal with
> android. One way is to establish a floor android level we aim to support
> (even if it is best efforts). That's due to the fact that android != java and
> only a subset of features are present, on each version. Here's a handy link
> that begins to discuss this complexity.
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20480090/does-android-support-jdk-6-or-7
> Modern android libraries typically use a combination of plugins and
> integration tests to ensure android isn't accidentally broken. Some projects
> just rely on folks to remember the rules.
> Here's an example of a signature-checking plugin
> {code}
> <plugin>
> <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
> <artifactId>animal-sniffer-maven-plugin</artifactId>
> <version>${animal.sniffer.version}</version>
> <executions>
> <execution>
> <phase>test</phase>
> <goals>
> <goal>check</goal>
> </goals>
> </execution>
> </executions>
> <configuration>
> <signature>
> <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo.signature</groupId>
> <artifactId>java16</artifactId>
> <version>1.1</version>
> </signature>
> </configuration>
> </plugin>
> {code}
> In short, I think we should be careful and consciously decide whether certain
> features that break some level of android support are worthwhile. We should
> also note that entrypoints that aren't used by android callers will not
> affect compatibility. In other words, we are most concerned with the common
> paths.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
