[Biojava-dev] Java version for Biojava 4

[Paolo Pavan]

Well, just beacuse it happened me to ask the same thing recently, anyway
there are several improvements in java 7. Both in performance
<http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/vm/performance-enhancements-7.html>and
in language syntax. For example, recently it happens that I couldn't use a
switch statement using strings.

Also, security updates
<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html#Java6-end-public-updates>
for java 6 are already outdated. I'm not very sure, this could be not an
issue if they refer to the vm itself programs (since old compiled code can
be executed by newer releases), but it could be if they refer to fixes to
the system library. Anyone has an opinion about that?

bye bye,
Paolo

2014-10-07 19:01 GMT+02:00 Andreas Prlic <andreas at sdsc.edu>:

> Hi,
>
> Based on RCSB PDB analytics, I would estimate that somewhere between
> 10-20% of all users are still on Java 1.6.  If we would upgrade to 1.7 we
> would break biojava derived applets and Java web start for these. As such
> I'd vote for staying conservative and to NOT upgrade to 1.7 at this time,
> in particular since there is no strong reason for the move. Less than 2% of
> users seem to be using 1.8 currently.
>
> Please note: anybody who is using the biojava jars can still build a
> derived application in 1.7 or 1.8, even if the underlying .jars have been
> compiled with an older version.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Michael Heuer <heuermh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm fine bumping to Java 7 as the minimum, although if there isn't a
>> strong reason to move from Java 6 we might as well stay there.
>>
>> I have found a few problems with Java 8, e.g.
>>
>> https://github.com/bigdatagenomics/adam/issues/198
>> https://github.com/nmdp-bioinformatics/ngs/issues/34
>>
>> so I wouldn't want to move to Java 8 as a minimum at this time.
>>
>>    michael
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jose Manuel Duarte <jose.duarte at psi.ch>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So has Java 6 been decided as the version for the 4.0 release? Just
>> asking
>> >> as Douglas' suggestion is solid (I actually wasn't aware of that
>> >> functionality).
>> >>
>> >
>> > [moved to a new thread]
>> >
>> > I would definitely vote for next release to be at least Java 7, I would
>> even
>> > try Java 8 to be more future proof. At the moment Java 7 is already 3
>> years
>> > old and very established. By the time we release Biojava 4, Java 6 will
>> > surely be quite ancient (around 8 years old).
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> > Jose
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > biojava-dev mailing list
>> > biojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
>> > http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> biojava-dev mailing list
>> biojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
>> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> biojava-dev mailing list
> biojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biojava-dev/attachments/20141008/8453a269/attachment.html>