Good point. But then why stop at 11? Spring ripped the bandage off in their latest by requiring 17.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 1:36 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Based on my experience, once an app is at legacy status in an enterprise, > your are not allowed to touch it and even less update its dependencies > (except for critical security updates). A new major version of a library is > out of scope anyway and especially in this case since it requires source > updates. > > Gary > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 4:30 PM Jim Showalter <jamesleeshowal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Libraries should be kept on the oldest safe (LTS) version forever, IMHO, > to > > avoid stranding legacy services. > > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 9:15 AM James Reeves <jree...@weavejester.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I'd very much prefer 11, unless 17 is necessary. I have a library that > > > currently depends on FileUpload 1.5, and only requires Java 8. For > > various > > > reasons, I've been very conservative with the required Java version. I > > was > > > already planning to make the jump to Java 11, so if FileUpload 2.0.0 > > moves > > > to Java 11 that doesn't affect me; but if it moves to 17, then I'd have > > to > > > either move to 17 as well, or think about temporarily forking > FileUpload. > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jul 2023, at 9:26 AM, Eugene Grybinnyk wrote: > > > > +1 for 17 > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 12:43 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Le sam. 22 juil. 2023 à 11:00, Gary Gregory < > garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > a > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Java 21 is not GA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FU neither and calendar looks like it can match. > > > > > > > > > > Main pro being to move to a more reactive programming at some point > > > which > > > > > could justify a 2.0 IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 04:48 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > jeano...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd say compile low and run high. > > > > > > > So unless there is really something you need from Java 17 or > 21, > > > why > > > > > not > > > > > > > compiling lower? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would open the release to be used more widely in my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I agree that making sure it runs on java 17 and 21 at least > > is > > > > > great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le ven. 21 juil. 2023, 18:40, Glavo <zjx001...@gmail.com> a > > écrit > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for Java 17. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glavo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:18 PM Gary Gregory < > > > > > garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that 2.0.0-M1 is out the door, let's talk about Java > > > platform > > > > > > > > > requirements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose that for 2.0.0, FileUpload be bumped from Java 8 > to > > > 11, > > > > > if > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > 17. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are going to ask why, see my reply in the [pool] > > thread > > > > > > > > > ( > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ngyrssxndklltzkoqfqx4n780h4b5vwk) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > [image: Backbase] <https://backbase.com/>*Eugene Grybinnyk* > > > > Backend Developer · R&D Business Banking · Amsterdam > > > > +31 (0) 62 992 3609 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > James Reeves > > > > > > > > >
