How many play users will have a problem with dropping support for the jdk1.5 in the next 1.2.5 release?

[Nicolas Leroux - committer]

Hi Players,

I have just noticed that hibernate 4.1 requires the jdk6. Hibernate 4.1 is a central piece of the next play 1.2.5 release. Thus my question, would it be a problem if we were to drop support for the jdk 1.5 for anyone?

I really don't want to release a 1.2.5 with hibernate 3 and another one with hibernate 4.1.

Nicolas

[Neeme Praks]

I posted my comments on https://play.lighthouseapp.com/projects/57987-play-framework/tickets/1520, but I'm re-posting them here also, for discussion.

We are using Play 1.2.x in a product (installed to customers). And we have a requirement to use JDK 1.5 (or newer) - it is a product and unless there is some VERY GOOD REASON, we just cannot tell our users that we stopped supporting Java 1.5. And Hibernate 4.x is not good enough reason for us.

Most elegant way out of this would be to release 1.2.5 (with Hibernate 3.x) and 1.3.x (with Hibernate 4.x). Yes, it is a hassle.

Or, you can just say that 1.2.x branch will be abandoned and rename 1.2.5 to 1.3.0 - this is also acceptable. At least there will not be a nasty surprise.

If you do not want to maintain 1.2.x branch, I know several people who are willing to do that. Otherwise we will just fork and do it anyway - we need it. But this is your opportunity to continue doing this under Play! umbrella.

BTW, your statement "Hibernate 4.1 is a central piece of the next play 1.2.5 release" sounds like that 1.2.5 is not a micro/bugfix release, it is at least a minor release (1.3.0).

Neeme

[Igmar Palsenberg]

If you ask me : Ditch 1.5 support. To much hassle to support if you ask me, and this will eventually and up in an IE6 discussion, and hinder the Play 1.x development.

Maintaining a separate branch just for the JDK 1.5 stuff is something that I wouldn't do easily, since it costs (lots) of time, that is better spend on actual 1.x developent.

     Igmar

[tazmaniac]

I'm deploying to 1.6 and looking forward to the Hibernate update so personally I'm happy to lose the 1.5 support but I have to admit with Neeme that it's a bit draconian for a minor release to force a JVM version update. On the flip side I don't want to add more effort to the committers to maintain multiple branches. Tough choice.

[Neeme Praks]

About the cost of supporting Java 1.5: depends on who takes that cost - if those developers would not contribute to Play otherwise then it is not an argument.

[Raphael André Bauer]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Neeme Praks <nem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About the cost of supporting Java 1.5: depends on who takes that cost - if
> those developers would not contribute to Play otherwise then it is not an
> argument.

Hi Nicolas,


thanks for preparing 1.2.5. Really great news!

1.6 is fine for us.

Wikipedia says: J2SE 5.0 entered its end-of-life on April 8, 2008 and
is no longer supported by Sun as of November 3, 2009.


Cheers,

Raphael

[Steve Chaloner]

My suggestion is
1. fix as many bugs as possible under 1.5
2. cut that release as 1.2.5
3. stop development on the 1.2 branch
4. Upgrade hibernate and move to 1.3

- Steve

[Tom Carchrae]

I really wish that the JPA/hibernate support was not baked in to Play
1.2.x. Then you could have a module for everyone.

I'm happy with just 1.6 - but I do sympathize with the people dealing
with giant corporations with sluggish IT that don't want to change
anything. But I also think those same people are responsible for IE6
living to the age that it did - so... well! And as Raphael pointed
out, they are using a product that has passed it's EOL.

Tom

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "play-framework" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/play-framework/-/KKNJXHyK4EUJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to play-fr...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> play-framewor...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/play-framework?hl=en.

[Sietse de Kaper]

I don't see a point in maintaining 1.5 support. It's not like it's hard to upgrade to JDK 6, and the JDK is fully backwards compatible.

Play is a server-side framework, and part of server administration is making sure you apply updates. There's your VERY GOOD REASON ;-)

If you're still running Java 1.5 at this point, you're 2 major versions behind. Java 6 came out SIX years ago.

Nicolas: I don't see a problem in dropping support for JDK 5, as long is it's made clear in the release notes. I also don't think a maintenance/bugfix release warrants a major version increment. And I think supporting 2 versions of Play 1.2.x is bad for the framework, since it would stall development too much. 

Play needs to move forward, not get stuck in the past.

Sietse.

On 11 mei, 2012, at 14:11, Neeme Praks wrote:

Original issue: https://play.lighthouseapp.com/projects/57987-play-framework/tickets/1520

Re-posting my comments below:

We have a requirement to use JDK 1.5 (or newer) - we are using Play! in a product and unless there is some VERY GOOD REASON, we just cannot tell our users that we stopped supporting Java 1.5. And Hibernate 4.x is not good enough reason for us.

Most elegant way out of this would be to release 1.2.5 (with Hibernate 3.x) and 1.3.x (with Hibernate 4.x). Yes, it is a hassle.

Or, you can just rename 1.2.5 to 1.3.0 - this is also acceptable. At least people will not have a nasty surprise after the upgrade.

If you do not want to maintain 1.2.x branch, I know several people who are willing to do that. Otherwise we will just have to fork and do it anyway.

Neeme

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "play-framework" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/play-framework/-/kZQV97NmA_wJ.

[Steve Chaloner]

Personally, I don't see the need to support 1.5.  1.4 isn't supported, and 1.5 is just as EOL as that is.

There's a finite amount of time and energy available, so it doesn't make sense to spend it on edge cases.

[Peter Hilton - committer (Lunatech)]

On Friday, 11 May 2012 14:05:16 UTC+2, Neeme Praks wrote:

We are using Play 1.2.x in a product (installed to customers). And we have a requirement to use JDK 1.5 (or newer) - it is a product and unless there is some VERY GOOD REASON, we just cannot tell our users that we stopped supporting Java 1.5. And Hibernate 4.x is not good enough reason for us.

The most reasonable option for an open-source project is to support only the current version of each of its dependencies. The Play framework open-source project does not have the resources to support a legacy technology version (Java 1.5) that is so old that even its own vendor (Oracle) does not support anymore.

If you are using Play in a commercial product then it is completely reasonable that you might want to choose to support a legacy technology to better serve your customers. In this case, you need commercial support for your legacy Play application architecture, which is available from companies like Lunatech Research (http://www.lunatech-research.com/). This support is not available from Play framework contributors working in their spare time, in evenings and weekends.

[Ben McCann]

1.6 is fine here.  I'm running Ubuntu on all my servers, which has had 1.6 as the default for quite some time.

[Neeme Praks]

Sure, it is up to you to decide what you choose to support, I was just giving a user perspective.

And, if you choose to drop Java 1.5 support, I highly recommend you to do it by releasing 1.3.0, not 1.2.5. This should be common sense - such a radical requirement should not be introduced in a micro/bugfix release.

As per "we do not have enough resources to support Java 1.5" argument - I'm not sure if you actually read my response fully? I'm OFFERING to take over the maintenance of Play! 1.2.x branch (Java 1.5 with Hibernate 3.x). I'm not saying that those of you who do not wish to work on 1.2.x branch should continue doing so - this is open-source after all, nobody can be forced to do anything.

If you do not like to accept new maintainers/contributors - fine, we'll just fork 1.2.x codebase and maintain it elsewhere.

Neeme

[sun]

Fine with me. BTW: has anybody running an 1.2 app on JDK 1.7?

[Steven Elliott Jr]

No problem for me; I don't think I've used 1.5 since like 2007 or something like that. 1.5 is now officially legacy IMO.

[Tom Carchrae]

Nicolas - does upgrading Hibernate require code changes?

[Nicolas Leroux]

No, not at all. Only if you were using internal hibernate API but that should not be the case

Sent frommy iPhone

On 12 mei 2012, at 14:40, Tom Carchrae <t...@carchrae.net> wrote:

Nicolas - does upgrading Hibernate require code changes?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "play-framework" group.