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
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to