On 1/16/15 2:09 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 01:30 AM, Gilles wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:41:11 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/15/15 2:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/08/2015 12:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Raising this issue once again.
> Are we go
Le 16/01/2015 23:24, Ben McCann a écrit :
> I vote Java 7. We haven't been able to upgrade all our infrastructure to
> Java 8 yet because of a few issues. One of which could be fixed by someone
> from Commons Dev cutting a new release of BCEL. The last one got voted
> down, but I have a patch for t
I vote Java 7. We haven't been able to upgrade all our infrastructure to
Java 8 yet because of a few issues. One of which could be fixed by someone
from Commons Dev cutting a new release of BCEL. The last one got voted
down, but I have a patch for the issues that blocked the release here:
https://i
On 01/16/2015 09:08 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:16:16 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 16/01/2015 13:20, Gilles a écrit :
I'm interested to know more about this.
Where can I find information? Do you have links?
Sure, Andrew Haley from Red Hat announced [1] two years ago that Op
On 01/16/2015 03:09 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/16/2015 01:30 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:41:11 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/15/15 2:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/08/2015 12:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
Raising this issue once again.
Are we going to upgrade the require
Le 16/01/2015 16:08, Gilles a écrit :
> Any more recent updates on the "hopes" mentioned there?
None that I'm aware of. I expect one when the end of public updates is
reached for Java 7.
> Did you notice how the global picture seems to change when "jdk" replaces
> "jre" in the request?
I guess
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:16:16 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 16/01/2015 13:20, Gilles a écrit :
I'm interested to know more about this.
Where can I find information? Do you have links?
Sure, Andrew Haley from Red Hat announced [1] two years ago that
OpenJDK
6 would still be supported, and
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:09:02 +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/16/2015 01:30 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:41:11 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/15/15 2:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/08/2015 12:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
Raising this issue once again.
Are we going to upgrade
Maybe nobody is interested to upgrade the Java version if they are not
forced to. If nobody force them, then CM will have to support Java 6 even
for 5.0 release. The sooner we drop support for older version, the better.
I'd say that current and current - 1 versions(i.e. 7 and 8) are more than
enoug
Le 16/01/2015 13:20, Gilles a écrit :
> I'm interested to know more about this.
> Where can I find information? Do you have links?
Sure, Andrew Haley from Red Hat announced [1] two years ago that OpenJDK
6 would still be supported, and we can expect the same support for
OpenJDK 7 in the future.
So, for places where you want to make use of streams, make your API
take a Stream rather than a Collection or whatever, and require
the user to choose whether to call parallelStream() or stream().
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/15/15 2:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:13:07 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 15/01/2015 17:15, Gilles a écrit :
I wonder: Isn't the "end of public updates"[1] (scheduled on April
of
this year for Java 7) somehow going to change that picture a lot?
If not, why?
That will not change much the current situation
Le 15/01/2015 17:15, Gilles a écrit :
> I wonder: Isn't the "end of public updates"[1] (scheduled on April of
> this year for Java 7) somehow going to change that picture a lot?
> If not, why?
That will not change much the current situation. Java 8 is already the
default JRE proposed on http://ja
On 01/16/2015 01:30 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:41:11 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/15/15 2:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2015 12:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
Raising this issue once again.
Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major re
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:41:11 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/15/15 2:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/08/2015 12:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
Raising this issue once again.
Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
[ ] Java 5
[x] Java 6
[x] Java 7
[ ] Java 8
On 1/15/15 2:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/08/2015 12:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Raising this issue once again.
>> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
>>
> [ ] Java 5
> [x] Java 6
> [x] Java 7
> [ ] Java 8
> [ ] Java 9
>
> A while ago I thoug
On 01/15/2015 03:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/08/2015 12:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
Raising this issue once again.
Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
[ ] Java 5
[x] Java 6
[x] Java 7
[ ] Java 8
[ ] Java 9
A while ago I thought that it wou
On 01/08/2015 12:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Raising this issue once again.
> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
>
[ ] Java 5
[x] Java 6
[x] Java 7
[ ] Java 8
[ ] Java 9
A while ago I thought that it would be cool to switch to Java 7/8 for
some of t
I’m very happily starting to use Java 8 and am making lots of use of JavaFX
(not so relevant to Math), and lambdas and streams (playing around with a
little numpy like interface to Math).
So, on the one hand I’m all for Java 8, but on the other hand there are things
I’d rather see done for the M
How many of the mobile developers have to have a 4.0 release? I suspect that
90% would be fine using 3.4, and the remaining 10% can wire the results of the
calculation using alternative means such as a REST or Socket service.
Cheers,
- Ole
On 01/15/2015 11:32 AM, venkatesha m wrote:
On
On 15/01/15 16:15, Gilles wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:52:11 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
Good call, Silviu!
The most recent version of their survey of Plumbr installations (823 in
total) was May of last year, only a few months after Java 8 came out
(link
below). At that time the break down w
On Thursday, 15 January 2015 10:45 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:05:27 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
> You would think so, but Java 6 hasn't been updated since early 2013
> and is
> still a quarter or more of the installed Java base. The support for
> highly
> scalable parallel
As much as I would like to I'm very new to the Apache development
universe. I've actually been involved through one release cycle and only
as a contributor. I wouldn't mind working with a more seasoned person
batting around ideas offline to then present to the group though.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:05:27 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
You would think so, but Java 6 hasn't been updated since early 2013
and is
still a quarter or more of the installed Java base. The support for
highly
scalable parallel operations that the new Java 8 language features
get is
very temptin
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:42:43 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 15/01/2015 17:15, Gilles a écrit :
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:52:11 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
Good call, Silviu!
The most recent version of their survey of Plumbr installations
(823 in
total) was May of last year, only a few months af
You would think so, but Java 6 hasn't been updated since early 2013 and is
still a quarter or more of the installed Java base. The support for highly
scalable parallel operations that the new Java 8 language features get is
very tempting though. Could we have a Java 8 branch on the core library
a
Le 15/01/2015 17:15, Gilles a écrit :
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:52:11 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
>> Good call, Silviu!
>>
>> The most recent version of their survey of Plumbr installations (823 in
>> total) was May of last year, only a few months after Java 8 came out
>> (link
>> below). At that
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:52:11 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
Good call, Silviu!
The most recent version of their survey of Plumbr installations (823
in
total) was May of last year, only a few months after Java 8 came out
(link
below). At that time the break down was: Java 5 at 0.4%, Java 6 at
3
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:32:25 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
If you are referring to default functions on interfaces, it's not
going to
be like multiple inheritance C++ style. Their rationale is to help
for
backwards compatibility with upgraded interfaces that add methods.
Obviously it could be u
Actually conflict resolution on multiple default methods is a little more
complicated (just fast forward to the 20 minute mark for the discussion on
that):
http://medianetwork.oracle.com/video/player/1113272518001
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Hank Grabowski
wrote:
> If you are referring to
If you are referring to default functions on interfaces, it's not going to
be like multiple inheritance C++ style. Their rationale is to help for
backwards compatibility with upgraded interfaces that add methods.
Obviously it could be used to intentionally provide default methods from
the very beg
From an API perspective we can design a functional programming API in
Java 7, it will just be more verbose than in Java 8. One unique feature
that Java 8 does bring is multiple inheritance. Now that interfaces can
have method implementations classes can inherit methods from multiple
super classes.
Good call, Silviu!
The most recent version of their survey of Plumbr installations (823 in
total) was May of last year, only a few months after Java 8 came out (link
below). At that time the break down was: Java 5 at 0.4%, Java 6 at 36%,
Java 7 at 61% and Java 8 at 2.5%. I'm still looking for mo
I think Rebel Labs or Plumbr have some metrics about JDK usage.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Hank Grabowski
wrote:
> Java 8 has only been out for less than a year. There is still a sizable
> percentage of groups that have not converted up to Java 8 for myriad
> reasons. While I was surpri
Java 8 has only been out for less than a year. There is still a sizable
percentage of groups that have not converted up to Java 8 for myriad
reasons. While I was surprised that we are requiring backwards
compatibility with the ten year old Java 5 I think jumping all the way to
requiring Java 8 ma
Converting an example from the user guide using Lambdas (Not an expert so bear
with me - And note that the inputArray > inputStream):
BEFORE:
// Get a DescriptiveStatistics instance
DescriptiveStatistics stats = new DescriptiveStatistics();
// Add the data from the array
for( int i = 0; i < in
On 1/14/15 4:38 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 14 January 2015 at 08:18, Martin Grotle Soukup
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> My two cents in favour of java 8:
>>
>> IIUC the next major release will break backwards compatibility and aims to
>> clean up the API. Taking a look at the release frequency of commons math
>
On 14 January 2015 at 08:18, Martin Grotle Soukup
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My two cents in favour of java 8:
>
> IIUC the next major release will break backwards compatibility and aims to
> clean up the API. Taking a look at the release frequency of commons math
> [1], it shows releases every 9-12 months
Hi,
My two cents in favour of java 8:
IIUC the next major release will break backwards compatibility and aims to
clean up the API. Taking a look at the release frequency of commons math
[1], it shows releases every 9-12 months (give or take). Given that the
next big release is a major one (4.0),
Java 7 or 8.
Gary
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> Raising this issue once again.
>>> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
>>>
>>> [ ] Java 5
>>> [ ] Java 6
>>> [ ] Java 7
>>> [ ] Java 8
>>> [ ] Java 9
>>>
>>
> Counts up to now:
>
> Java 7
I would love to see Java 8.
Ole
On 01/13/2015 07:31 PM, Gilles wrote:
Raising this issue once again.
Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
[ ] Java 5
[ ] Java 6
[ ] Java 7
[ ] Java 8
[ ] Java 9
Counts up to now:
Java 7 -> 2
Java 7 or 8 -> 2
Java 8
Raising this issue once again.
Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
[ ] Java 5
[ ] Java 6
[ ] Java 7
[ ] Java 8
[ ] Java 9
Counts up to now:
Java 7 -> 2
Java 7 or 8 -> 2
Java 8 -> 2
Any more opionions?
Gilles
---
Le 08/01/2015 12:34, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> Raising this issue once again.
> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
>
> [ ] Java 5
> [ ] Java 6
> [ ] Java 7
> [ ] Java 8
> [ ] Java 9
I would say 7 or 8.
best regards,
Luc
>
> ?
>
> Gilles
>
>
> On Thu,
I wouldn't think you'd want to begin anything "new" using an EOLed
version of Java. I'd go with at least 7.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Raising this issue once again.
> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
>
> [ ] Java 5
> [ ] Java 6
>
On 1/8/15 4:34 AM, Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Raising this issue once again.
> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
>
> [ ] Java 5
> [ ] Java 6
> [x] Java 7
> [ ] Java 8
> [ ] Java 9
Phil
>
> ?
>
> Gilles
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:34:20 +, sebb wrote:
>> I've
My clients started to use Java 7 a few months before, so I wouldn't choose
Java 8. I know it's new and shinny and as a developer I'd love to play with
it, but unfortunately, users are using it. I'd go for Java 7 and plan Java
8 for Math 5.0
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
2015-01-08 13:57 GMT+01:00 Martin Grotle Soukup <
martin.grotle.sou...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I am only a user of the library, but I would be excited to see CM take
> advantage of the new features of java 8.
>
> Best regards,
> Martin Grotle Soukup
>
>
> 2015-01-08 12:34 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
>
> > Hi
Hi,
I am only a user of the library, but I would be excited to see CM take
advantage of the new features of java 8.
Best regards,
Martin Grotle Soukup
2015-01-08 12:34 GMT+01:00 Gilles :
> Hi.
>
> Raising this issue once again.
> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major relea
Hi.
Raising this issue once again.
Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
[ ] Java 5
[ ] Java 6
[ ] Java 7
[ ] Java 8
[ ] Java 9
?
Gilles
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:34:20 +, sebb wrote:
I've had to give up trying to get Continuum to use Git, so I set up a
Je
49 matches
Mail list logo
