You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org> on 2004/10/01 10:21:34 UTC
[Proposal] Java1.4 as minimum requirement
Given that JDK1.5 is out, I propose that we clearly ask JRE1.4 as a
minimum base requirement for Forrest. This should also clear some
problems that users were having with IBM JDK 1.3.
What about also deciding that we will always ask our users to be at
least one point release behind the latest Java Platform?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] Java1.4 as minimum requirement
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
...
> IMO, unless there is a real, tangible reason for changing the
> requirements, you may get more 'mileage' out of supporting an older
> version of the JDK (i.e., more consumers of Forrest).
Ok, I understand and concur.
Unfortunately Cocoon2.2 will be using 1.4, and we are now using this
version because of the pass-through capability that is not trivial to
backport to the 2.1 branch.
Because of this we will continue to support 1.3 till Cocoon 2.2 does not
actually use 1.4 stuff, and then switch to 1.4.
I guess that our policy can then be written as:
- though shall not require the latest JDK version
- though shall not use a newer JDK if it's not really needed
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] Java1.4 as minimum requirement
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
On Oct 1, 2004, at 6:16 AM, Dave Brondsema wrote:
> Quoting Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>:
>> Given that JDK1.5 is out, I propose that we clearly ask JRE1.4 as a
>> minimum base requirement for Forrest. This should also clear some
>> problems that users were having with IBM JDK 1.3.
>>
>> What about also deciding that we will always ask our users to be at
>> least one point release behind the latest Java Platform?
>
> I use forrest regularly with jdk1.3 at work and it is fine. The only
> problems
> I've encountered were making sure upgraded jars were compiled with
> jdk1.3. I
> think it would be ok to move the requirement to 1.4 but only if we
> have a good
> reason to abandon 1.3. The release of Java 5.0 isn't a reason why
> forrest
> should abandon 1.3
I concur with Dave Brondsema on this. Unless there is a significant
reason to move away from jdk1.3 (other than just being one release
behind the latest and greatest), you may lose potential users (and
developers) of forrest.
BRIEF ANECDOTE
I have a client running a system which cannot be upgraded to JDK 1.4
(AIX 4.3 running IBM Java 1.3--the latest, and probably last release
for AIX 4.3). They don't use /forrest/ in their application, but they
do use FOP, which is also contemplating such a change with their 1.0
release. This is unfortunate, as they won't be able to benefit from the
improvements released in fop-1.0. The current requirement for FOP is
'officially' JDK 1.2 (although I'm not convinced you don't actually
need JDK 1.3).
IMO, unless there is a real, tangible reason for changing the
requirements, you may get more 'mileage' out of supporting an older
version of the JDK (i.e., more consumers of Forrest).
Web Maestro Clay
Re: [Proposal] Java1.4 as minimum requirement
Posted by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>.
Quoting Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>:
>
> Given that JDK1.5 is out, I propose that we clearly ask JRE1.4 as a
> minimum base requirement for Forrest. This should also clear some
> problems that users were having with IBM JDK 1.3.
>
> What about also deciding that we will always ask our users to be at
> least one point release behind the latest Java Platform?
>
I use forrest regularly with jdk1.3 at work and it is fine. The only problems
I've encountered were making sure upgraded jars were compiled with jdk1.3. I
think it would be ok to move the requirement to 1.4 but only if we have a good
reason to abandon 1.3. The release of Java 5.0 isn't a reason why forrest
should abandon 1.3
--
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org
Re: [Proposal] Java1.4 as minimum requirement
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >>Given that JDK1.5 is out, I propose that we clearly ask JRE1.4 as a
> >>minimum base requirement for Forrest. This should also clear some
> >>problems that users were having with IBM JDK 1.3.
> >
> > I would be okay with that. Should we poll our users?
>
> Honestly, I think that this is more a design decision, as Forrest has
> had some issues with IBM JDK1.3, is harder to work on with headless, and
> overall doesn't make me comfortable to be able to run Forrest to give
> the user experience and output I would expect it to (wow, my longest
> phrase ever!).
Yes, i thought this too after sending that mail.
Actually, when we agree on the next point, then
that settles the above item.
> >>What about also deciding that we will always ask our users to be at
> >>least one point release behind the latest Java Platform?
> >
> > Ditto. However you mean "at most".
>
> :-)
Better to say "either the current release or the previous release".
--
David Crossley
Re: [Proposal] Java1.4 as minimum requirement
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Given that JDK1.5 is out, I propose that we clearly ask JRE1.4 as a
>>minimum base requirement for Forrest. This should also clear some
>>problems that users were having with IBM JDK 1.3.
>
> I would be okay with that. Should we poll our users?
Honestly, I think that this is more a design decision, as Forrest has
had some issues with IBM JDK1.3, is harder to work on with headless, and
overall doesn't make me comfortable to be able to run Forrest to give
the user experience and output I would expect it to (wow, my longest
phrase ever!).
>>What about also deciding that we will always ask our users to be at
>>least one point release behind the latest Java Platform?
>
>
> Ditto. However you mean "at most".
:-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] Java1.4 as minimum requirement
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Given that JDK1.5 is out, I propose that we clearly ask JRE1.4 as a
> minimum base requirement for Forrest. This should also clear some
> problems that users were having with IBM JDK 1.3.
I would be okay with that. Should we poll our users?
> What about also deciding that we will always ask our users to be at
> least one point release behind the latest Java Platform?
Ditto. However you mean "at most".
--
David Crossley