[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-discuss
Subject:    [The Java Posse] Re: Java End of Life Time
From:       johnyeary () gmail ! com (John Yeary)
Date:       2012-02-13 16:06:18
Message-ID: CAOzQtinq9VgDkPcGWAPHm=mBT9_aZf_NqfOnHRURY17N=O1W4A () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

LOL... the bank remarks at least here in NC, SC, and GA generally meet
category 2. I love it.

We had a discussion at the IOUC Summit about backwards compatibility. Since
Java 1.0, the platform has been backwards compatible for binary releases.
Granted if they needed to change their old code base, they would need to
upgrade, but I don't even think they would try to run their code with JDK 7
to even see if it breaks.
____________________________

John Yeary
____________________________

<http://javaevangelist.blogspot.com/>  <https://twitter.com/jyeary>
<http://www.youtube.com/johnyeary>
  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jyeary>
<https://plus.google.com/112146428878473069965>
  <http://www.facebook.com/jyeary>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/JavaEvangelistJohnYearysBlog>
  <http://netbeans.org/people/84414-jyeary>
____________________________

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who
neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight
that knows not victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt



On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Jess Holle <jessh at ptc.com> wrote:

>  Is there any sort of an ETA / target release date for a "stable" Java 7
> (including Java Plug-In!) for Mac OS X?
>
> On every other substantive platform (even AIX!) it seems the time is now
> right to *require* Java 7 for new product releases.  Mac OS X is a boat
> anchor for the Java community, though.  You end up either having to cut it
> loose (i.e. not support it) or it drags you down and holds you back.
>
> --
> Jess Holle
>
> P.S. I suspect any bank that moves from Java 1.4.2 in the near future will
> move to Java 6 precisely because it is so old and proven at this point.
> There are 2 types of IT stances: (1) those that want active maintenance and
> are thus amenable to (controlled) change in software they depend upon and
> (2) those who'd really prefer something that has entirely stopped changing
> in any way whatsoever -- even if that means no maintenance.  Category (1)
> includes early adopters but also those who very carefully gauge when a
> technology is mature enough to be a trusted replacement for older
> versions.  Category (2) includes folk like banks who are so averse to
> change that they're deathly afraid of maintenance releases.
>
>
> On 2/13/2012 9:30 AM, John Yeary wrote:
>
> Ugh!
>
>  I wasn't implying that it shouldn't be supported right now. As Mark, and
> Andrew pointed out there are some obstacles and opportunities: "Official"
> JDK 7 is not available for Mac OSX, and the user community will likely need
> support for OpenJDK 6 going forward.
>
>  Denis pointed out that Windows builds are not necessarily being consumed
> with vigor. This will likely be the case as the JDK advances on for  other
> versions as well.
>
>  I am kind of surprised by Andrew though... I find that folks who are
> using OpenJDK on RedHat will tend to migrate from old tech to new tech
> quickly. ;-)
>
>  I think that with limited resources, the folks who are working on
> OpenJDK (volunteers not paid) will likely focus on the next generation
> stuff. Anecdotal evidence based on experience. It does open the opportunity
> for companies to support it in the ecosystem for older editions. Even back
> porting changes in 7, 8, 9... if they will work and improve the user
> experience.
>
>  There are a number of banks who are still on JDK 1.4.2. This represents
> a big obstacle to moving forward. Eventually, it will be a bigger task once
> they decide to move ahead. Hopefully, the move won't be to JDK 6. It is
> like falling up stairs. ;-)
>
>  John
>
> ____________________________
>
>  John Yeary
> ____________________________
>
>  <http://javaevangelist.blogspot.com/>  <https://twitter.com/jyeary> <http://www.youtube.com/johnyeary>
>   <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jyeary> <https://plus.google.com/112146428878473069965>
>   <http://www.facebook.com/jyeary> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/JavaEvangelistJohnYearysBlog>
>   <http://netbeans.org/people/84414-jyeary>
> ____________________________
>
> "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
> though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who
> neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight
> that knows not victory nor defeat."
> -- Theodore Roosevelt
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Mark Derricutt <mark at talios.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd say we need to support it for the simple reason that Java 7 is not
>> yet available on OSX.
>>
>> --
>> "Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" ? Steven
>> Wilson, Porcupine Tree
>>
>>  On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 3:11 AM, John Yeary <johnyeary at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Why would we want to continue to support JDK6 when the community is
>>> focused
>>>  on JDK7, JDK8, and JDK9. There may a future in someone (company) other
>>> than
>>> Oracle to provide the support from the OpenJDK side of things. However, I
>>> think that the focus should be on getting companied to stay current.
>>>
>>
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Java Posse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to javaposse at googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> javaposse+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
>
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]