Re: LazyRecords & Java7

[Daniel Worthington-Bodart]

NB: I've cross posted to the other mailing lists

Okay here are some constraints:

• I only want to support 2 versions of any of my libraries
• Stable (Currently Java 1.6)
• Development (Java 1.8)
• I want to be consistent across all my libraries
• Java 7 offered very little and hence why I never bothered pushing for it (before)
  
• Originally I felt that switching Java versions on a stable release was a bad idea (but open)

So now I'm wondering, 

• Do we drop support for Java 6 across every library as Java 6 is end of life?
  
• Is there anyone out there that is still stuck on Java 6?

If we can't be consistent then I don't want one library requiring Java 7, so

• Do the changes in Lucene propagate through their public API? 
  
• Or could verify that it works in Java 6 with Lucene 4.8 and then Java 7 with Lucene 4.9?

On 3 September 2014 11:49, Mike Hogan <m...@mikehogan.net> wrote:

no objections from the solo contingent

On 3 Sep 2014, at 11:41, Stuart Miller <spmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

We are considering upgrading LazyRecords to support Lucene 4.9.0, which requires Java7. We could create a Java7 build of LR and renumber LR a la TotallyLazy, or we could just drop Java 6.

Does anybody have any objections to making LazyRecords support Java7 only?

Thanks,

Stuart and Enrico

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lazyrecords" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lazyrecords...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lazyrecords" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lazyrecords...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Stuart Miller]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for outlining the constraints -- they all sound reasonable to me.

As far as Java 6 support is concerned, we're happy for it to go since it's EOL.

For Lucene, the class files are now compiled with Java 7 (actually, this is since 4.8, not 4.9 as we originally said). Java 7 would only be a runtime dependency if you're using Lucene -- presumably we could output 1.6 bytecode. I'm not sure if that answers your last point?

Stuart

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "utterlyidle" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to utterlyidle...@googlegroups.com.

[Stuart Miller]

Hi all,

We're going to make the change to support Java7 only. All projects will have a versioning strategy like TotallyLazy (1.x for stable/Java 7, 2.x for dev/Java 8). Stable will also have a Java 8 compatibility build to ensure it works fine on Java 8.

These changes should be complete later today.

Thanks,

Stuart

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Manuel Paccagnella <manuel.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Il giorno mercoledì 3 settembre 2014 18:01:43 UTC+2, Daniel Worthington-Bodart ha scritto:

• Do we drop support for Java 6 across every library as Java 6 is end of life?
  

This seems a sensible solution to me.

 

• Is there anyone out there that is still stuck on Java 6?

Unfortunately, yes (don't ask). But in our case everything *should* work on Java 7, in any case we're planning an official transition in the short term.
 
Cheers,
Manuel

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "totallylazy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to totallylazy...@googlegroups.com.