Hi Jakub, yeah this is also my experience... we have a whole load of people stuck on really outdated versions... and most other people are already on Java 7 or planning to move. Moreover most people don't take new versions of the Qpid libraries straight away either... (or those that do are also the types to already be on the latest version of Java). Personally I think I'll be supporting Java 6 for another couple of years - but some of those users are probably using prehistoric versions of the Qpid code too.
To be honest I'd be incredibly surprised if the source for the client doesn't continue to compile and run on Java 6 for at least the next couple of releases... however I don't think it's sustainable for the developers to have to run tests against three different Java environments for every change and in particular I do not think it is right to ask the developers to have to install and run versions of Java for which Oracle is no longer providing any security remediation. -- Rob On 10 April 2014 20:40, Jakub Scholz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > People always need a proper motivation to upgrade from outdated Java to > something newer ... and you can motivate them. (I know, this is not really > the objection you are asking for) > > A bit to my surprise, so far nobody from my colleagues seemed to have > problem with this idea. I guess it must be because most of our Java > applications are fairly new and the real legacy projects run on much older > technologies than Java 6 :-). > > Regards > Jakub > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Rob Godfrey <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Just bumping this thread again - does anyone have any objections... I'd > > plan on moving forward with switching the builds to 1.7 sometime next > > week if we haven't heard any by then > > > > -- Rob > > > > > > On 8 April 2014 00:02, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 7 April 2014 19:30, Fraser Adams <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think that this definitely needs input from the broad community. I > > can > > > > see where you're coming from, but my observations of large > Enterprises > > > > (which TBH are often the main consumers of Messaging products) are > that > > > > they are often in a difficult position wrt. keeping up with the > times. > > > > Don't talk to me about IE8 for example!! There's a whole *industry* > of > > > > polyfills because Enterprises won't or can't upgrade. > > > > > > > > > > I dont necessarily think IE8 is a comparable situation to a Java > version > > > change, but I do take your point. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that your comment "Those those who 'cant' or dont want > to > > > > upgrade to such 'new' (i.e really quite old now) Java releases are > > often > > > > likely to be the same ones that aren't so likely to use the latest > Qpid > > > > releases either" necessarily holds, often things like compiler > versions > > > get > > > > corporately mandated whereas there might be less control exerted on > > > > libraries. I've got painful memories of being stuck on Java 3 when > the > > > > world had moved to Java 5, this stuff is not as simple as you seem to > > > think. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that there is often more control (and as a result, lack thereof > > for > > > the users) exercised over the platform than the things running on it, > > but I > > > would also say that my experience has been that the two things drift > > > together to an extent as time passes, and the controlled platform leads > > > people to stop upgrading the things running on it as it gets older, > even > > > when they could still do so. > > > > > > I do realise its not always that simple on the client side, but on the > > > broker side for example it isnt necessarily that hard, there are ways > to > > > handle that in isolation if really required. Obviously if you rule > those > > > options out you need to have a plan in place to cope with the result of > > > those decisions (where hoping we are super nice isnt really a plan). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm quite impressed that your own organisation has migrated to Java 7 > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm *personally* fairly agnostic on this I just think that it's > > important > > > > to bear in mind how large Enterprises often operate. > > > > > > > > > > I unfortunately would say I spend too much of my time bearing in mind > how > > > they do hehe. Its certainly getting my own personal consideration, an > is > > > actually one of the main reasons I support the proposal. > > > > > > I know there are people that wont pick such new stuff up until several > > > months or years after it is released, at which point I dont really > think > > > its a good thing to see them still able to deploy it on the Java 6 JVM > > they > > > should have looked to stop using by then nevermind trying to use it > for a > > > couple further years :) > > > > > > > > > > (Lack of) what features are causing you the most pain? Just curious > > > > really. > > > > > > > > > It isnt necessarily just about features (though there are certainly > some > > > I'd like to be able to rely on, and not necessarily even at the > language > > > level), eventual supportability also comes into it for me. If noone is > > > supporting those JVMs on the other end, and we dont really have the > > > bandwidth to do so either, is letting new stuff continue to run on them > > > when noone is testing/fixing the result really such a good thing? > (Hello > > > Windows XP, I hear tomorrow is your deathday...please tell your users) > > > > > > Supporting things far beyond their own EOL date feels a bit like > jumping > > in > > > beside someone digging themselves into a hole to lend them an extra > pair > > of > > > hands to speed things up :) > > > > > > > > > > Rob mentioned "as JMS 2.0 does" in his mail, I'm not at all familiar > > with > > > > JMS 2.0, so I'm interested what key things have changed and what new > > > stuff > > > > it depends on. Is the implication of this that the new AMQP 1.0 JMS > > > client > > > > that you guys are working on will be JMS 2.0 only? I noticed that the > > > > pom.xml in there specifies Java 7 already - I guess that's your none > to > > > > subtle hint ;-> > > > > > > > > > > > It is indeed to be a JMS 2.0 client and thus the 1.7 in the pom isnt a > > hint > > > but rather a requirement; as Rob mentioned the JMS 2.0 API make use of > > the > > > try-with-resources language feature, which is strictly Java7+ > > > > > > (obviously that isnt to say you can't do things like hack the bytecode > > > after the fact to make it work with Java 6, but...lets not get crazy) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm you could probably make similar arguments for adopting C++11 - > not > > > > least because Boost version dependencies suck, but there are still a > > ton > > > of > > > > people (myself included at the moment) with older systems - though to > > be > > > > fair upgrading C++ compilers tends to be harder than upgrading Java > > > > versions for any given OS version. > > > > > > > > > Especially if you arent talking about package manager installations. > One > > is > > > really really easy, is the other? :) > > > > > > > > > > It's interesting that Proton (well Proton-C at any rate) seems to be > > > > taking a very different tack where it seems to be actively trying to > > > > minimise dependencies on anything new and shiny - I'm pretty sure I > > saw a > > > > Jira the other day for changing send.c and recv.c because they were > C99 > > > and > > > > broke on Windows builds that needed good old C89 :-D > > > > > > > > Just being a bit Devils' advocate to mix things up a bit, as I say > I'm > > > > personally agnostic :-) > > > > > > > > Frase > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/04/14 17:33, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think this makes sense. We waited too long to drop support for > Java > > 5, > > > >> lets not repeat that with 6. Beginning to depend on Java 7 after > three > > > >> years doesnt seem unreasonable to me. > > > >> > > > >> Those those who 'cant' or dont want to upgrade to such 'new' (i.e > > really > > > >> quite old now) Java releases are often likely to be the same ones > that > > > >> aren't so likely to use the latest Qpid releases either. > > > >> > > > >> Robbie > > > >> > > > >> On 7 April 2014 13:17, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> All, > > > >>> > > > >>> now that Java 8 has been released, and Java 6 has been officially > > EOLd > > > >>> for > > > >>> well over a year, I'd like to propose that we make 0.28 the last > > > release > > > >>> for which we officially support Java 6. As a library provider I'm > > > aware > > > >>> that we need to strive to make our libraries as widely adoptable as > > > >>> possible, but not adopting Java 7 also holds us back from > > implementing > > > >>> functionality that requires features of later releases (as JMS 2.0 > > > does). > > > >>> > > > >>> Java 7 was released in 2011 and is itself scheduled to be EOLd next > > > year. > > > >>> > > > >>> If we do later find critical defects that affect the 0.28 release > we > > > >>> should > > > >>> consider back-patching to a Java 6 release based on 0.28, however I > > > don't > > > >>> think requiring that all new functionality releases require the > > > adoption > > > >>> a > > > >>> version of Java that Oracle supports to be an undue burden. > > > >>> > > > >>> -- Rob > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
