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 "Peter M. Goldstein" <pe...@yahoo.com> on 2002/08/11 02:06:08 UTC
Random Version Question Time
All,
Here's a random question. What version Java is required to run James?
And where is this information documented on the web site?
I can't seem to find that information. My personal guess would be that
Java 1.3 or greater is required. As this affects both users (since they
must have the JVM installed) and developers (who must constrain
themselves to use classes that are available in the appropriate Java
version) I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a
consensus on this?
--Peter
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
2.0a3 will compile with 1.3 & 1.4, not with 1.2.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Benett [mailto:charles@benett1.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 11 August 2002 17:52
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: Random Version Question Time
>
>
> Danny, can you clarify this?
> Are we saying that
> 1) the 2.0a3 binaries were compiled with 1.3 (but the source code could
> be compiled under 1.2), or,
> 2) the 2.0a3 source will only compile with JDK 1.3?
>
> Charles
>
> Danny Angus wrote:
> > pgoldstein wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a
> >>consensus on this?
> >
> >
> > RTFM
> >
> > Peter _read_ the james homepage
> http://jakarta.apache.org/james/index.html
> > and you'll see it states "James requires Java 2 (either JRE 1.3
> or 1.4 as of
> > 2.0a3)"
> >
> > James 2.0a3 will build and run under 1.3 or 1.4, I believe avalon
> > dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions (head of cvs) Serge
> > hacked the db pool and build.xml to compile against the correct
> version of
> > JDBC for the JDK version being used.
> >
> > Up to 2.0a3 binary releases made by me were compiled by 1.3,
> newer releases
> > will be compiled by 1.4 on the principle that we should be
> using the latest
> > stable JDK for releases where possible.
> >
> > d.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Random Version Question Time
Posted by Charles Benett <ch...@benett1.demon.co.uk>.
Danny, can you clarify this?
Are we saying that
1) the 2.0a3 binaries were compiled with 1.3 (but the source code could
be compiled under 1.2), or,
2) the 2.0a3 source will only compile with JDK 1.3?
Charles
Danny Angus wrote:
> pgoldstein wrote:
>
>
>>I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a
>>consensus on this?
>
>
> RTFM
>
> Peter _read_ the james homepage http://jakarta.apache.org/james/index.html
> and you'll see it states "James requires Java 2 (either JRE 1.3 or 1.4 as of
> 2.0a3)"
>
> James 2.0a3 will build and run under 1.3 or 1.4, I believe avalon
> dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions (head of cvs) Serge
> hacked the db pool and build.xml to compile against the correct version of
> JDBC for the JDK version being used.
>
> Up to 2.0a3 binary releases made by me were compiled by 1.3, newer releases
> will be compiled by 1.4 on the principle that we should be using the latest
> stable JDK for releases where possible.
>
> d.
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Random Version Question Time
Posted by Vincent Keunen <vi...@manex.be>.
For what it's worth, Apple's MacOS X server comes with JDK1.3 and is not
yet ready for 1.4...
Sun's JDK1.4 may be ready but what about its port to all the platforms
that Sun does not support directly? I would suggest waiting before
rushing to 1.4...
Danny Angus wrote:
>>For my money, changing the JDK requirement for James needs a vote.
>>
>>At the same time, I'm happy to make 1.4 the requirement, if , say
>>someone wants too use the Assertion Facility, NIO or
>>java.util.regex.* etc.
>>
>>
>
>I agree, at the moment the HEAD compiles (and runs?) under 1.3+
>Unless there is a *strong* case for changing this I'd be against it until
>1.4 has been around as the stable version for a little longer.
>
>d.
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
!try; do()
--
Vincent Keunen, Ir, http://vincent.keunen.net
Manex, rue Wagner 93, BE-4100 Boncelles, Belgium
Our site: http://www.manex.be
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
> For my money, changing the JDK requirement for James needs a vote.
>
> At the same time, I'm happy to make 1.4 the requirement, if , say
> someone wants too use the Assertion Facility, NIO or
> java.util.regex.* etc.
I agree, at the moment the HEAD compiles (and runs?) under 1.3+
Unless there is a *strong* case for changing this I'd be against it until
1.4 has been around as the stable version for a little longer.
d.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> Unless there is a *strong* case for changing this I'd be against it until
> 1.4 has been around as the stable version for a little longer.
Why would we want to restrict which release of Java we run on without a
strong case? [rhetorical question]
> > e.g. what is compelling?
> Ah now we're getting to the bones of the discussion :-)
Actually, I don't know that we're even having the discussion, are we? There
was a question about what IS the policy, but I haven't seen a proposal for
JDK 1.4, yet. The one place I might have used it, I just put a comment into
the source so that whomever is maintaining at that time could see what I was
thinking.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
> e.g. what is compelling?
Ah now we're getting to the bones of the discussion :-)
d.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Random Version Question Time
Posted by Charles Benett <ch...@benett1.demon.co.uk>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>For my money, changing the JDK requirement for James needs a vote.
>
>
> If that hasn't ever actually been the policy, it should be the policy.
>
>
>>Assertion Facility, NIO or java.util.regex.* etc.
>
>
> Well, since we already have regex from the oro classes, I wouldn't press to
> use java.util.regex just yet. But I might have liked to use
> NetworkInterface to discover the local IP addresses.
>
> So far, though, I'm not see a *compelling* reason to force a JDK 1.4
> requirement. What would be your standard for casting a vote? Compelling
> reason, or just a benefit?
A single compelling reason or a set of benefits that collectively are
compelling.
Of course, the point of a vote is to ensure the issues are discussed,
e.g. what is compelling?
Charles
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> For my money, changing the JDK requirement for James needs a vote.
If that hasn't ever actually been the policy, it should be the policy.
> Assertion Facility, NIO or java.util.regex.* etc.
Well, since we already have regex from the oro classes, I wouldn't press to
use java.util.regex just yet. But I might have liked to use
NetworkInterface to discover the local IP addresses.
So far, though, I'm not see a *compelling* reason to force a JDK 1.4
requirement. What would be your standard for casting a vote? Compelling
reason, or just a benefit?
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Random Version Question Time
Posted by Charles Benett <ch...@benett1.demon.co.uk>.
For my money, changing the JDK requirement for James needs a vote.
At the same time, I'm happy to make 1.4 the requirement, if , say
someone wants too use the Assertion Facility, NIO or java.util.regex.* etc.
Charles
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>So the answer is Java 1.3
>
>
> Danny also said "avalon dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions
> (head of cvs)" and "newer [than 2.0a3] releases will be compiled by 1.4."
>
> So far I haven't had a problem running the CVS (2.1) release with JDK 1.3,
> but I don't know if newer releases of the Avalon components will require
> 1.4. As I understand it, so far there is not a requirement for JDK 1.4 in
> either James or the Avalon components we depend upon.
>
> However, as I understood your question, you want to know if/when it is OK to
> start making use of JDK 1.4 capabilities in James. That question doesn't
> appear to be answered by TFM.
>
> --- Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:peter_m_goldstein@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 5:47
> To: 'James Developers List'; farsight@alum.mit.edu
> Subject: RE: Random Version Question Time
>
> Danny et al,
>
> Sorry about that. Don't know how I missed it. :)
>
> So the answer is Java 1.3
>
> --Peter
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Danny Angus [mailto:danny@apache.org]
>>Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 2:06 AM
>>To: James Developers List; farsight@alum.mit.edu
>>Subject: RE: Random Version Question Time
>>
>>pgoldstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a
>>>consensus on this?
>>
>>RTFM
>>
>>Peter _read_ the james homepage http://jakarta.apache.org/james/index.html
>>and you'll see it states "James requires Java 2 (either JRE 1.3 or 1.4
>>as of 2.0a3)"
>>
>>James 2.0a3 will build and run under 1.3 or 1.4, I believe avalon
>>dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions (head of cvs)
>>Serge hacked the db pool and build.xml to compile against the correct
>>version of JDBC for the JDK version being used.
>>
>>Up to 2.0a3 binary releases made by me were compiled by 1.3, newer
>>releases will be compiled by 1.4 on the principle that we should
>>be using the latest stable JDK for releases where possible.
>>
>>d.
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> So the answer is Java 1.3
Danny also said "avalon dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions
(head of cvs)" and "newer [than 2.0a3] releases will be compiled by 1.4."
So far I haven't had a problem running the CVS (2.1) release with JDK 1.3,
but I don't know if newer releases of the Avalon components will require
1.4. As I understand it, so far there is not a requirement for JDK 1.4 in
either James or the Avalon components we depend upon.
However, as I understood your question, you want to know if/when it is OK to
start making use of JDK 1.4 capabilities in James. That question doesn't
appear to be answered by TFM.
--- Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:peter_m_goldstein@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 5:47
To: 'James Developers List'; farsight@alum.mit.edu
Subject: RE: Random Version Question Time
Danny et al,
Sorry about that. Don't know how I missed it. :)
So the answer is Java 1.3
--Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Angus [mailto:danny@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 2:06 AM
> To: James Developers List; farsight@alum.mit.edu
> Subject: RE: Random Version Question Time
>
> pgoldstein wrote:
>
> > I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a
> > consensus on this?
>
> RTFM
>
> Peter _read_ the james homepage http://jakarta.apache.org/james/index.html
> and you'll see it states "James requires Java 2 (either JRE 1.3 or 1.4
> as of 2.0a3)"
>
> James 2.0a3 will build and run under 1.3 or 1.4, I believe avalon
> dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions (head of cvs)
> Serge hacked the db pool and build.xml to compile against the correct
> version of JDBC for the JDK version being used.
>
> Up to 2.0a3 binary releases made by me were compiled by 1.3, newer
> releases will be compiled by 1.4 on the principle that we should
> be using the latest stable JDK for releases where possible.
>
> d.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by "Peter M. Goldstein" <pe...@yahoo.com>.
Danny et al,
Sorry about that. Don't know how I missed it. :)
So the answer is Java 1.3
--Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Angus [mailto:danny@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 2:06 AM
> To: James Developers List; farsight@alum.mit.edu
> Subject: RE: Random Version Question Time
>
> pgoldstein wrote:
>
> > I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a
> > consensus on this?
>
> RTFM
>
> Peter _read_ the james homepage
http://jakarta.apache.org/james/index.html
> and you'll see it states "James requires Java 2 (either JRE 1.3 or 1.4
as
> of
> 2.0a3)"
>
> James 2.0a3 will build and run under 1.3 or 1.4, I believe avalon
> dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions (head of cvs)
Serge
> hacked the db pool and build.xml to compile against the correct
version of
> JDBC for the JDK version being used.
>
> Up to 2.0a3 binary releases made by me were compiled by 1.3, newer
> releases
> will be compiled by 1.4 on the principle that we should be using the
> latest
> stable JDK for releases where possible.
>
> d.
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-
> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-
> help@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
pgoldstein wrote:
> I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a
> consensus on this?
RTFM
Peter _read_ the james homepage http://jakarta.apache.org/james/index.html
and you'll see it states "James requires Java 2 (either JRE 1.3 or 1.4 as of
2.0a3)"
James 2.0a3 will build and run under 1.3 or 1.4, I believe avalon
dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions (head of cvs) Serge
hacked the db pool and build.xml to compile against the correct version of
JDBC for the JDK version being used.
Up to 2.0a3 binary releases made by me were compiled by 1.3, newer releases
will be compiled by 1.4 on the principle that we should be using the latest
stable JDK for releases where possible.
d.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Random Version Question Time
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
That is a very good question. And the new version of Phoenix coming shortly
supports JMX. At what point can we take advantage of JDK 1.4?
--- Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:peter_m_goldstein@yahoo.com]
All,
Here's a random question. What version Java is required to run James?
And where is this information documented on the web site?
I can't seem to find that information. My personal guess would be that
Java 1.3 or greater is required. As this affects both users (since they
must have the JVM installed) and developers (who must constrain
themselves to use classes that are available in the appropriate Java
version) I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a
consensus on this?
--Peter
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>