You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com> on 2007/01/08 10:46:51 UTC
[PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
WDYT?
I would be cautiously in favour of this as long as no-one knows of any
real situations where 1.4 is the newest available version.
depending on whether this proposal achieves a clear consensus I may call a vote.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
On 1/8/07, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Does anyone know how many users was on Jdk 1.3 for outdated j2ee servers
> 1 year after java 5 has been released?
We were. I don't know of others.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On 1/8/07, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > We should continue to make sure James is running with Java versions > 1.4
> > And I am +1 for a future version of the mailet engine to require Java 5.
> > About requiring Java 5 for the Server, I don't know. Why should the
> > Server require Java 5 if it really does not use any J5 specifics and
> > only one of its subprojects does?
>
> I think we don't require Java 5 simply because we chose to not use java
> 5 features :-) . I bet that if we start requiring java 5 then we'll soon
> see generics, @override, enum and other useful stuff all over the code.
ok, but that is a different motivation and worth a proposal of its own :-)
Server could really benefit from those new language features.
It would require major changes in the code.
...and I am already off-topic ;-)
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> We should continue to make sure James is running with Java versions > 1.4
> And I am +1 for a future version of the mailet engine to require Java 5.
> About requiring Java 5 for the Server, I don't know. Why should the
> Server require Java 5 if it really does not use any J5 specifics and
> only one of its subprojects does?
I think we don't require Java 5 simply because we chose to not use java
5 features :-) . I bet that if we start requiring java 5 then we'll soon
see generics, @override, enum and other useful stuff all over the code.
Furthermore java 5 would give us MINA for SSL/StartTLS support: our
current SSL support break sun jre 6 compatibility: I've not investigated
on this but if this is the case I would prefer to loose java 2 1.4
compatibility in favor of java 6 compatibility for next-greater.
(Mina seems to provide a vendor indipendent solution, while our current
ssl support seems to be bound to SUN jdk 1.4 and 1.5 only).
Btw I think it is a matter of time: sooner or later java 5 requirement
will not be an issue anymore.
> If the mailet engine was pluggable and a J1.4 compatibility release
> was available, it would not be such a big shift.
If we place varargs logging methods in the next mailet apis then
implementors of that API will need java 5. So this not only "1
subproject require J5 specific stuff" but we don't need the main project
to do the same.
Is there any statistic site that can tell us what is the standard delay
in JVM adoption?
Does anyone know how many users was on Jdk 1.3 for outdated j2ee servers
1 year after java 5 has been released?
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
We should continue to make sure James is running with Java versions > 1.4
And I am +1 for a future version of the mailet engine to require Java 5.
About requiring Java 5 for the Server, I don't know. Why should the
Server require Java 5 if it really does not use any J5 specifics and
only one of its subprojects does?
If the mailet engine was pluggable and a J1.4 compatibility release
was available, it would not be such a big shift.
Bernd
On 1/8/07, Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
> look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
>
> WDYT?
>
> I would be cautiously in favour of this as long as no-one knows of any
> real situations where 1.4 is the newest available version.
>
> depending on whether this proposal achieves a clear consensus I may call a vote.
>
>
> d.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Danny Angus wrote:
> A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
> look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
>
> WDYT?
>
> I would be cautiously in favour of this as long as no-one knows of any
> real situations where 1.4 is the newest available version.
>
> depending on whether this proposal achieves a clear consensus I may call
> a vote.
+1 for next-greater (trunk after we will branch next-major).
Of course for anything before next-greater (2.3.1, next-minor,
next-major) this would mean breaking backward compatibility and we
agreed that they will all be backward compatible.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 1/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > i suspect that given good modularization, this choice could be made on
> > a per-component basis whilst the core remained lowest common
> > denominator JVM. james would then still run on older JVMs with small
> > changes to the configuration files.
>
> +1 That was the proposal the last time this sort of thing came up. For
> example, if we want to implement STARTTLS, we need JDK 5 or later.
what would need to be done?
keep james/server as an integration layer and factor out all
implementation and core interfaces...?
keep everything within server and have src/java and src/java5...?
other options...?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
On 1/13/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i suspect that given good modularization, this choice could be made on
> a per-component basis whilst the core remained lowest common
> denominator JVM. james would then still run on older JVMs with small
> changes to the configuration files.
>
> for example, if the server code factored out maillet support into
> maillet engine components then separate implementations could support
> the annotation and non-annotation based maillet API versions.
Makes sense, as does Noel's suggestion to poll users.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i suspect that given good modularization, this choice could be made on
> a per-component basis whilst the core remained lowest common
> denominator JVM. james would then still run on older JVMs with small
> changes to the configuration files.
+1 That was the proposal the last time this sort of thing came up. For
example, if we want to implement STARTTLS, we need JDK 5 or later.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 1/12/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
> > look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
>
> For what? Are we going to do this for trunk therefore meaning that the only
> releasable code will require JSE 5, since any meaningful changes to anything
> other than trunk are being blocked?
it seems to me that there's a danger of lots of independent issues
being conflated into one big stumbling block
i suspect that given good modularization, this choice could be made on
a per-component basis whilst the core remained lowest common
denominator JVM. james would then still run on older JVMs with small
changes to the configuration files.
for example, if the server code factored out maillet support into
maillet engine components then separate implementations could support
the annotation and non-annotation based maillet API versions.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL] - James to require jdk 1.5.x +
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
> look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
For what? Are we going to do this for trunk therefore meaning that the only
releasable code will require JSE 5, since any meaningful changes to anything
other than trunk are being blocked?
> I would be cautiously in favour of this as long as no-one knows of any
> real situations where 1.4 is the newest available version.
What does latest available have to do with what people are actually using?
Perhaps we ought to do another user poll before disenfranchising users.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org