| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Hastie <andrew(at)ahastie(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC 4 Compliance |
| Date: | 2013-06-27 17:03:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4E82C61C-9AFD-4DD5-97B2-7983F96A0B5C@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On 2013-06-27, at 05:45 , Andrew Hastie <andrew(at)ahastie(dot)net> wrote:
> 2. To say that anything prior to Java7 is "dead" is ridiculous at this point in time, at least in a commercial environment. In one or two year's time however it may be different. Yes, there may be compelling security reasons to upgrade from 6 to 7, but in an existing deployed commercial environment happily running Java 5 or 6, you are only going to upgrade to Java 7 if there is a very good reason to do so. I can recall numerous examples of a "simple" Java version upgrade breaking one or more production systems. I've just checked the very latest WebShere offering from IBM (Version 8.5.5) and that still installs Java6 by default.
Stupid question, but in an "existing deployed commercial environment happily running Java 5 or 6", are they going to be upgrading their JDBC more frequently then their JDK? basically, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies to their JDK, won't it apply to there jDBC too?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Wooten | 2013-06-27 17:36:17 | Re: JDBC 4 Compliance |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2013-06-27 16:56:31 | Re: JDBC 4 Compliance |