Re: IntMap.java

["J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>]

Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Shall we launch a poll on fop-user about abandoning support for 1.4 and
> require 1.5 as a minimum? :-]

A poll: maybe. Abandoning 1.3: Not yet.
If the usage of those hash maps is only in a few places, we could
provide JDK dependent code and tell people that FOP runs faster
on JDK 1.5.

J.Pietschmann

Re: IntMap.java

[Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>]

J.Pietschmann wrote:

> Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> 
>> Shall we launch a poll on fop-user about abandoning support for 1.4 and
>> require 1.5 as a minimum? :-]
> 
> 
> A poll: maybe. Abandoning 1.3: Not yet.

Did you mean 1.4 here? I thought we had all agreed to drop support for 
1.3 now? I have long argued that we maintain support for it due to the 
length of time it takes for more recent JDKs to become available for 
ancient o/s which large organisations tend to use to run their batch 
processes on. AFICT, 98% of all o/s can now support 1.4, but not yet 1.5 
so we shouldn't drop support for 1.4 for a while yet but I think its 
safe to drop 1.3 support.

<snip/>

Chris

Re: IntMap.java

["Peter B. West" <li...@pbw.id.au>]

J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>> Shall we launch a poll on fop-user about abandoning support for 1.4 and
>> require 1.5 as a minimum? :-]
> 
> A poll: maybe. Abandoning 1.3: Not yet.
> If the usage of those hash maps is only in a few places, we could
> provide JDK dependent code and tell people that FOP runs faster
> on JDK 1.5.
> 
> J.Pietschmann

FOP should run markedly faster on 1.6 without any changes. Just about
everything else does.

-- 
Peter B. West <http://cv.pbw.id.au/>
Folio <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/folio/>