You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@xalan.apache.org by Shane Curcuru <sh...@yahoo.com> on 2002/02/06 20:21:22 UTC
Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
A couple of notes:
-1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
(within a week-ish) -sc
+1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers and call
for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear clear comments
(and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you should assume
we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
- Shane
(P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8 compilation last
week... 8-)
---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
> I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
even
> Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year or so ago,
some
> of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
upgrade.
> I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue, and whether
Xalan
> wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
Sticking
> with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
hasn't
> been firmly established yet.
> So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
=====
<eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
"http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
support?
Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@metalab.unc.edu>.
>A couple of notes:
>
>-1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
>(within a week-ish) -sc
>
>+1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
>we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
>
This is a community call to keep 1.1 support. The vast majority of
the Macintosh installed base still cannot run Java 1.2. Until MacOS 9
is no longer a common option among Mac users I can't see abandoning
Java 1.1.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) |
| http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Chris McCabe <Ch...@choicehotels.com>.
Perhaps it would help the discussion if someone familiar with all the
issues involved could post a bullet list of the pros and cons of keeping
1.1 support vs. dropping it. At least then everyone can point to
specific items that support their opinion instead of just saying it's
time for everyone to switch.
I personally don't care one way or the other since I am not working on
the code, but if someone tells me something I might gain by dropping the
1.1 support, I might jump on the bandwagon.
I do think a valid reason for switching is so the developers can use the
newer JDK, even if it does not provide any other benefits (unhappy
developers is definitely not a good thing, especially when it is a
'volunteer' effort), but it should be weighed against any other
pros/cons. (unhappy clients is also not a good thing, because then the
'volunteers' are wasting their time on something nobody wants).
Here is the list as far as I know:
Pro - Developers can use JDK1.2 and stop worrying about 1.1
Con - Some clients will be forced to stay at older revision
Is that all?
Chris
Shane Curcuru wrote:
>A couple of notes:
>
>-1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
>(within a week-ish) -sc
>
>+1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
>we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
>
>This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers and call
>for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear clear comments
>(and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you should assume
>we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
>
>- Shane
>(P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8 compilation last
>week... 8-)
>
>---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
>
>>I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
>>
>even
>
>>Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year or so ago,
>>
>some
>
>>of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
>>
>upgrade.
>
>>I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue, and whether
>>
>Xalan
>
>>wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
>>
>Sticking
>
>>with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
>>
>hasn't
>
>>been firmly established yet.
>>So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
>>
>
>=====
><eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
> "http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
>http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
--
Chris P. McCabe - Senior Software Systems Architect
Choice Hotels International - Information Technology
chris_mccabe@choicehotels.com 602-953-4416
Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Chris McCabe <Ch...@choicehotels.com>.
Perhaps it would help the discussion if someone familiar with all the
issues involved could post a bullet list of the pros and cons of keeping
1.1 support vs. dropping it. At least then everyone can point to
specific items that support their opinion instead of just saying it's
time for everyone to switch.
I personally don't care one way or the other since I am not working on
the code, but if someone tells me something I might gain by dropping the
1.1 support, I might jump on the bandwagon.
I do think a valid reason for switching is so the developers can use the
newer JDK, even if it does not provide any other benefits (unhappy
developers is definitely not a good thing, especially when it is a
'volunteer' effort), but it should be weighed against any other
pros/cons. (unhappy clients is also not a good thing, because then the
'volunteers' are wasting their time on something nobody wants).
Here is the list as far as I know:
Pro - Developers can use JDK1.2 and stop worrying about 1.1
Con - Some clients will be forced to stay at older revision
Is that all?
Chris
Shane Curcuru wrote:
>A couple of notes:
>
>-1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
>(within a week-ish) -sc
>
>+1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
>we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
>
>This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers and call
>for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear clear comments
>(and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you should assume
>we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
>
>- Shane
>(P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8 compilation last
>week... 8-)
>
>---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
>
>>I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
>>
>even
>
>>Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year or so ago,
>>
>some
>
>>of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
>>
>upgrade.
>
>>I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue, and whether
>>
>Xalan
>
>>wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
>>
>Sticking
>
>>with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
>>
>hasn't
>
>>been firmly established yet.
>>So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
>>
>
>=====
><eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
> "http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
>http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
--
Chris P. McCabe - Senior Software Systems Architect
Choice Hotels International - Information Technology
chris_mccabe@choicehotels.com 602-953-4416
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Gary L Peskin <ga...@firstech.com>.
I'm with Shane on this. +1 on dropping support for JDK 1.1.8
compliation and runtime as soon as everyone else wants to. This means
that, as the opportunity presents itself, we can remove the reflection
code checking for things like Thread.getContextClassLoader and just
reference that directly.
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:shane_curcuru@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:21 AM
> To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org; xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require
> Java 1.1 support?
>
>
> A couple of notes:
>
> -1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3
> release (within a week-ish) -sc
>
> +1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
> we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
>
> This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers
> and call for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't
> hear clear comments (and have volunteers to help) about
> changing this, you should assume we'll make this change in
> the next few weeks.
>
> - Shane
> (P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8
> compilation last week... 8-)
>
> ---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
> > I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
> even
> > Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year or so ago,
> some
> > of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
> upgrade.
> > I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue, and whether
> Xalan
> > wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
> Sticking
> > with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
> hasn't
> > been firmly established yet.
> > So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
>
> =====
> <eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
> "http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Gary L Peskin <ga...@firstech.com>.
I'm with Shane on this. +1 on dropping support for JDK 1.1.8
compliation and runtime as soon as everyone else wants to. This means
that, as the opportunity presents itself, we can remove the reflection
code checking for things like Thread.getContextClassLoader and just
reference that directly.
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:shane_curcuru@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:21 AM
> To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org; xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require
> Java 1.1 support?
>
>
> A couple of notes:
>
> -1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3
> release (within a week-ish) -sc
>
> +1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
> we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
>
> This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers
> and call for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't
> hear clear comments (and have volunteers to help) about
> changing this, you should assume we'll make this change in
> the next few weeks.
>
> - Shane
> (P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8
> compilation last week... 8-)
>
> ---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
> > I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
> even
> > Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year or so ago,
> some
> > of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
> upgrade.
> > I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue, and whether
> Xalan
> > wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
> Sticking
> > with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
> hasn't
> > been firmly established yet.
> > So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
>
> =====
> <eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
> "http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Paul Brown <pr...@fivesight.com>.
> This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers and call
> for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear clear comments
> (and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you should assume
> we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
+1 from me for dropping 1.1 support; also +1 for creating/having a strategy
(if one can exist) for dealing with 1.4.
-- Paul
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Rick Bullotta <ri...@lighthammer.com>.
Consider this a "community" vote to dump 1.1 support.
Rick Bullotta
CTO
Lighthammer Software (www.lighthammer.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:shane_curcuru@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:21 PM
To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org; xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
support?
A couple of notes:
-1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
(within a week-ish) -sc
+1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers and call
for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear clear comments
(and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you should assume
we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
- Shane
(P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8 compilation last
week... 8-)
---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
> I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
even
> Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year or so ago,
some
> of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
upgrade.
> I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue, and whether
Xalan
> wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
Sticking
> with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
hasn't
> been firmly established yet.
> So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
=====
<eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
"http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Mikko Honkala <ho...@tml.hut.fi>.
This is a community vote to keep Java 1.1 support. We are using Xalan at client side in our Open Source XML browser X-Smiles. We
have ported it to small devices that do not support Java2. One example of such Java environment designed for small devices is Kaffe.
Regards,
Mikko Honkala
http://www.x-Smiles.org/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:shane_curcuru@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 6. helmikuuta 2002 21:21
> To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org; xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
> support?
>
>
> A couple of notes:
>
> -1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
> (within a week-ish) -sc
>
> +1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
> we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
>
> This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers and call
> for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear clear comments
> (and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you should assume
> we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
>
> - Shane
> (P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8 compilation last
> week... 8-)
>
Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
support?
Posted by Carlos Araya <ca...@cvc.edu>.
On 02/06/02 13:16, "Gunnlaugur Thor Briem" <gt...@dimon.is> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's one community vote saying "drop it yesterday".
Here's a vote for think carefully what your dropping, when are you doing it,
and how will it affect developers and end users.
>
> Those users still clinging to Java 1.1 (either because
> of arcane platforms or just plain upgradeophobia) are
> probably (hopefully?) a pretty small proportion of the
> Xalan user base, and anyway they already have a well
> functional, stable 1.1-compatible release, Xalan 2.2
> (plus the option, in the case of MacOS 9 users, of
> upgrading to an actual operating system :)
Some of us do not have the luxury of dictating what our customers would use,
How I wish it was different sometimes. So what you're saying if I understand
correctly is from 2.3 on screw everyone who is limited on the platforms they
can deploy in and let's only worry about the cutting edge. That makes for a
very lousy development strategy.
Another thing that annoyed the hell out of me is that you're saying upgrade
like it was as easy as upgrading Linux or something. Most of the people who
are using OS 9 in my experience are people who can't upgrade to OS X (the
real operating system) even if they wanted to.
>
> It's not worth holding on to stone-age compatibility
> forever, at the cost of performance and development
> ease. And there will always be cries of despair from
> the paleolithic contingent, no matter how long we wait.
> I say it's been plenty long enough already.
And a little more tact wouldn't hurt either. If people think they've been
waiting long enough, they could always have striped the source from all the
JDK 1.1X stuff a long time ago.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Gulli
>
--
Carlos E. Araya
---+ WebCT Administrator/Trainer
P | California Virtual Campus
- | C/O De Anza College
G | 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd
---+ Cupertino, CA 95014
email carlos@cvc.edu
web http://www.cvc1.org/ (work)
http://www.silverwolf-net.net (personal)
phone 408 257 0420 (work)
PGP Fingerprint: E629 5DFD 7EAE 4995 E9D7 3D2F 5A9F 0CE7 DFE7 1756
80/20 Rule: Simplicity vs. complexity. 80 percent of the
functionality/feature set of an "ideal" solution set, with only 20 percent
of the complexity of the ideal solution or 20 percent of the effort required
to build the ideal solution; or put another way, the last 20 percent of the
"ideal" feature set is what creates the most complexity
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Gunnlaugur Thor Briem <gt...@dimon.is>.
Hi,
here's one community vote saying "drop it yesterday".
Those users still clinging to Java 1.1 (either because
of arcane platforms or just plain upgradeophobia) are
probably (hopefully?) a pretty small proportion of the
Xalan user base, and anyway they already have a well
functional, stable 1.1-compatible release, Xalan 2.2
(plus the option, in the case of MacOS 9 users, of
upgrading to an actual operating system :)
It's not worth holding on to stone-age compatibility
forever, at the cost of performance and development
ease. And there will always be cries of despair from
the paleolithic contingent, no matter how long we wait.
I say it's been plenty long enough already.
Cheers,
- Gulli
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Mikko Honkala <ho...@tml.hut.fi>.
This is a community vote to keep Java 1.1 support. We are using Xalan at client side in our Open Source XML browser X-Smiles. We
have ported it to small devices that do not support Java2. One example of such Java environment designed for small devices is Kaffe.
Regards,
Mikko Honkala
http://www.x-Smiles.org/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:shane_curcuru@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 6. helmikuuta 2002 21:21
> To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org; xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
> support?
>
>
> A couple of notes:
>
> -1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
> (within a week-ish) -sc
>
> +1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
> we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
>
> This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan committers and call
> for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear clear comments
> (and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you should assume
> we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
>
> - Shane
> (P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8 compilation last
> week... 8-)
>