Re: Benchmarks?

[jason marshall <jd...@gmail.com>]

You know, it's interesting you say you support compatibility with 1.3...

You're aware that the distribution JAR is compiled with -target 1.5, right?
So everyone not running JDK 1.5 has to recompile the jar file in order to
deploy, making it a little harder to verify that the xmlsec.jar file is
authentic.

I discovered this myself while trying to re-verify our code.  I have to
support 1.4, which means I can't guarantee all of my libraries (we had to
recompile to get a workable jar).  On anything else, I probably wouldn't
care, but this is sort of critical.

-Jason



On Sep 27, 2007 1:59 PM, Raul Benito <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
> I understand your concerns, and I think you are right stating that in1.6this optimization is unneeded and even can be a small pesimization (I don't
> think it so extreme but I don't have data to back-up). But I have numbers
> that show that 1.4 is a nice optimization and if you go to j2me it is even
> better. As we still have people with 1.4 JVM (we have 1.3 compatibility
> yet) I think we should keep this small hack.
>
> But anyway I'm more than open to find a common path that works well in new
> and old machines. And also I think there are more paths to optimize.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raul
>
>

Re: Benchmarks?

[Sean Mullan <Se...@Sun.COM>]

Raul Benito wrote:
> Thanks Jason,
> This is a bug against the release. I think I change this in our ant
> dist long ago.
> Perhaps is something related to jsr105 (Sean, Do you think we have
> anyproblem if we chage to target 1.3)

Some parts of the JSR 105 code requires JDK 1.4. So my preference would 
be to use -target 1.4 ... hopefully there aren't many users still using 
JDK 1.3 (at least nobody else has complained).

--Sean


> 
> Can you raise a bug in bugzilla so we can fix this. And thanks a lot.
> 
> On Dec 17, 2007 6:38 PM, jason marshall <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You know, it's interesting you say you support compatibility with 1.3...
>>
>> You're aware that the distribution JAR is compiled with -target 1.5, right?
>> So everyone not running JDK 1.5 has to recompile the jar file in order to
>> deploy, making it a little harder to verify that the xmlsec.jar file is
>> authentic.
>>
>> I discovered this myself while trying to re-verify our code.  I have to
>> support 1.4, which means I can't guarantee all of my libraries (we had to
>> recompile to get a workable jar).  On anything else, I probably wouldn't
>> care, but this is sort of critical.
>>
>> -Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2007 1:59 PM, Raul Benito <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Jason,
>>> I understand your concerns, and I think you are right stating that in1.6
>> this optimization is unneeded and even can be a small pesimization (I don't
>> think it so extreme but I don't have data to back-up). But I have numbers
>> that show that 1.4 is a nice optimization and if you go to j2me it is even
>> better. As we still have people with 1.4 JVM (we have 1.3 compatibility yet)
>> I think we should keep this small hack.
>>> But anyway I'm more than open to find a common path that works well in new
>> and old machines. And also I think there are more paths to optimize.
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Raul
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Benchmarks?

[Raul Benito <ra...@apache.org>]

Thanks Jason,
This is a bug against the release. I think I change this in our ant
dist long ago.
Perhaps is something related to jsr105 (Sean, Do you think we have
anyproblem if we chage to target 1.3)

Can you raise a bug in bugzilla so we can fix this. And thanks a lot.

On Dec 17, 2007 6:38 PM, jason marshall <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know, it's interesting you say you support compatibility with 1.3...
>
> You're aware that the distribution JAR is compiled with -target 1.5, right?
> So everyone not running JDK 1.5 has to recompile the jar file in order to
> deploy, making it a little harder to verify that the xmlsec.jar file is
> authentic.
>
> I discovered this myself while trying to re-verify our code.  I have to
> support 1.4, which means I can't guarantee all of my libraries (we had to
> recompile to get a workable jar).  On anything else, I probably wouldn't
> care, but this is sort of critical.
>
> -Jason
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2007 1:59 PM, Raul Benito <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> > I understand your concerns, and I think you are right stating that in1.6
> this optimization is unneeded and even can be a small pesimization (I don't
> think it so extreme but I don't have data to back-up). But I have numbers
> that show that 1.4 is a nice optimization and if you go to j2me it is even
> better. As we still have people with 1.4 JVM (we have 1.3 compatibility yet)
> I think we should keep this small hack.
> >
> > But anyway I'm more than open to find a common path that works well in new
> and old machines. And also I think there are more paths to optimize.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Raul
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
http://r-bg.com