On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:42, sebb wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 03:40, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> For now, I want @override so I am ok with 1.6 source but I is safe to
>>> the have 1.5 target? Commons-io >=2.3 is not pressing for VFS.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>
On 17 June 2012 03:40, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> For now, I want @override so I am ok with 1.6 source but I is safe to
>> the have 1.5 target? Commons-io >=2.3 is not pressing for VFS.
>>
>> Gary
>
> Why would it not be? If that is all you are doi
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> For now, I want @override so I am ok with 1.6 source but I is safe to
> the have 1.5 target? Commons-io >=2.3 is not pressing for VFS.
>
> Gary
Why would it not be? If that is all you are doing the @Override doesn't make it
to the actual Class
tting stuck on older
>>>>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>>>>> as VFS-415.
>>>>
>>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
>>> fo
VFS-415.
>>>
>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
>> support jdk 6). I
in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>>>>> as VFS-415.
>>>>
>>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much
>>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
>>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jbos
ail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
>>>>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
>>>>> as VFS-415.
>>>>
>>>> I was happy to see V
however makes it impossible for us to use
>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
>> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
>> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
>> >
>> > /Andreas
>
hank you very much
> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use
> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't
> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users
> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed
> prior to the change. A
This has been backed out of SVN for now.
(from the JIRA:)
Whys:
- Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the
21st c
Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed prior to
the change. As a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something
requires it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary
before asking him to revert it.
Ralph
On May 14, 2012, at
> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older
> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked
> as VFS-415.
I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much for
that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us
12 matches
Mail list logo
