On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-08-04, Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > >> Thanks, and sorry about the rather abrupt subject line (I forgot to >> fill in the rest before sending the mail!) > > No problem. > >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2010-08-04, Hyrum Wright wrote: > >>>> Also, I'm a bit curious why we still require a source version of Java >>>> 1.4. > >>> Not sure, my guess is that we didn't have a compelling reason to use >>> Java5 features so far. There is a JIRA issue open that want to see us >>> move to Java5. > >> I'm interested mainly to clean up the various loop iterations. I >> don't know how much the use of generics would benefit us. > > Agreed. There may be places where we could benefit from enums as well. > But even then most changes would be cosmetic and so far nobody wanted to > invest time into it. You're welcome 8-)
Well, we can at least change the source and target Java versions, which removes the 1.4 restriction, and then just change stuff as it comes along. There isn't any requirement (that I know of) that a 1.5 conversion happen en masse. I'd be happy to help as a diversion from $REAL_WORK. (This coming from the guy is is also subverting RAT by writing a competitor. :) > Even though Ant still lives in Java 1.4 land, there wouldn't be any > problem with an Antlib that required Java 5 - Maven 2.2 requires Java5 > by now. I don't really think we are sticking with Java 1.4 for any real > reason other than "nobody has started the migration". > > I'd be fine with Java5 - once the 0.7 version has been released, that > is. Agreed. -Hyrum
