You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xmlrpc-dev@ws.apache.org by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com> on 2002/01/26 08:58:40 UTC
Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
> Speaking of Vector: Now that there is language in the README that
> suggests a Java version requirement of 1.2+, is it time to switch from
> Vector to List, and from Hashtable to Map? I brought this up almost two
> years ago (http://helma.org/archives/xmlrpc/2000-April/000007.html),
> but at the time many folks were counting on 1.1 compatibility.
I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
1.2 and higher. With 1.4 right around the corner, and the rich set of
collections offered by 1.2, it is definitely a step in the right
direction.
Can I get some +1's on this from committers, please?
Dan
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@zenplex.com>.
On 1/26/02 8:17 AM, "Hannes Wallnoefer" <ha...@helma.at> wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
>
>> Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Speaking of Vector: Now that there is language in the README that
>>> suggests a Java version requirement of 1.2+, is it time to switch from
>>> Vector to List, and from Hashtable to Map? I brought this up almost two
>>> years ago (http://helma.org/archives/xmlrpc/2000-April/000007.html),
>>> but at the time many folks were counting on 1.1 compatibility.
>>>
>>
>> I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
>> 1.2 and higher. With 1.4 right around the corner, and the rich set of
>> collections offered by 1.2, it is definitely a step in the right
>> direction.
>>
>> Can I get some +1's on this from committers, please?
>
>
> Yes, I guess it's about time.
>
> +1
+1
> Hannes
>
>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@zenplex.com>.
On 1/26/02 8:17 AM, "Hannes Wallnoefer" <ha...@helma.at> wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
>
>> Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Speaking of Vector: Now that there is language in the README that
>>> suggests a Java version requirement of 1.2+, is it time to switch from
>>> Vector to List, and from Hashtable to Map? I brought this up almost two
>>> years ago (http://helma.org/archives/xmlrpc/2000-April/000007.html),
>>> but at the time many folks were counting on 1.1 compatibility.
>>>
>>
>> I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
>> 1.2 and higher. With 1.4 right around the corner, and the rich set of
>> collections offered by 1.2, it is definitely a step in the right
>> direction.
>>
>> Can I get some +1's on this from committers, please?
>
>
> Yes, I guess it's about time.
>
> +1
+1
> Hannes
>
>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Hannes Wallnoefer <ha...@helma.at>.
Daniel Rall wrote:
> Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
>
>
>>Speaking of Vector: Now that there is language in the README that
>>suggests a Java version requirement of 1.2+, is it time to switch from
>>Vector to List, and from Hashtable to Map? I brought this up almost two
>>years ago (http://helma.org/archives/xmlrpc/2000-April/000007.html),
>>but at the time many folks were counting on 1.1 compatibility.
>>
>
> I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
> 1.2 and higher. With 1.4 right around the corner, and the rich set of
> collections offered by 1.2, it is definitely a step in the right
> direction.
>
> Can I get some +1's on this from committers, please?
Yes, I guess it's about time.
+1
Hannes
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net>.
Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
> > 1) adding XmlRpc class properties that determine which implementations
> > of List and Map should be used when converting <array> and <struct>
> > arguments and results to Java objects, and
> >
> > 2) adding a backward compatibility class boolean that produces the
> > old behavior without having to do anything else.
Daniel Rall wrote:
> Item 1 sounds like a good idea, but I don't see the point of item 2 if
> item 1 is clearly documented.
Yeah, I guess it's not important. I just thought there would be howls
of protest if there were no simple way to get the old behavior.
Depends on whether you think
XmlRpc.structClass = java.util.Hashtable;
XmlRpc.arrayClass = java.util.Vector;
is too complicated.
> A patch would be terrific. ;-)
I'll see what I can do. I had one ready two years ago... :-)
--tim
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net>.
Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
> > 1) adding XmlRpc class properties that determine which implementations
> > of List and Map should be used when converting <array> and <struct>
> > arguments and results to Java objects, and
> >
> > 2) adding a backward compatibility class boolean that produces the
> > old behavior without having to do anything else.
Daniel Rall wrote:
> Item 1 sounds like a good idea, but I don't see the point of item 2 if
> item 1 is clearly documented.
Yeah, I guess it's not important. I just thought there would be howls
of protest if there were no simple way to get the old behavior.
Depends on whether you think
XmlRpc.structClass = java.util.Hashtable;
XmlRpc.arrayClass = java.util.Vector;
is too complicated.
> A patch would be terrific. ;-)
I'll see what I can do. I had one ready two years ago... :-)
--tim
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
> Dan Rall wrote:
> > I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
>> 1.2 and higher.
>
> If/when this is approved, I'd like to suggest that backward compatibility
> with Vector and Hashtable be maintained by
>
> 1) adding XmlRpc class properties that determine which implementations
> of List and Map should be used when converting <array> and <struct>
> arguments and results to Java objects, and
>
> 2) adding a backward compatibility class boolean that produces the
> old behavior without having to do anything else.
>
> Defaults for 1) would be ArrayList and HashMap. (Going from Java to
> <array> and <struct> is no problem: anything implementing List is
> an <array> and anything implementing Map is a <struct>.)
Item 1 sounds like a good idea, but I don't see the point of item 2 if
item 1 is clearly documented. A patch would be terrific. ;-)
Thanks, Dan
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
> Dan Rall wrote:
> > I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
>> 1.2 and higher.
>
> If/when this is approved, I'd like to suggest that backward compatibility
> with Vector and Hashtable be maintained by
>
> 1) adding XmlRpc class properties that determine which implementations
> of List and Map should be used when converting <array> and <struct>
> arguments and results to Java objects, and
>
> 2) adding a backward compatibility class boolean that produces the
> old behavior without having to do anything else.
>
> Defaults for 1) would be ArrayList and HashMap. (Going from Java to
> <array> and <struct> is no problem: anything implementing List is
> an <array> and anything implementing Map is a <struct>.)
Item 1 sounds like a good idea, but I don't see the point of item 2 if
item 1 is clearly documented. A patch would be terrific. ;-)
Thanks, Dan
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net>.
Dan Rall wrote:
> I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
> 1.2 and higher.
If/when this is approved, I'd like to suggest that backward compatibility
with Vector and Hashtable be maintained by
1) adding XmlRpc class properties that determine which implementations
of List and Map should be used when converting <array> and <struct>
arguments and results to Java objects, and
2) adding a backward compatibility class boolean that produces the
old behavior without having to do anything else.
Defaults for 1) would be ArrayList and HashMap. (Going from Java to
<array> and <struct> is no problem: anything implementing List is
an <array> and anything implementing Map is a <struct>.)
--tim
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Hannes Wallnoefer <ha...@helma.at>.
Daniel Rall wrote:
> Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net> writes:
>
>
>>Speaking of Vector: Now that there is language in the README that
>>suggests a Java version requirement of 1.2+, is it time to switch from
>>Vector to List, and from Hashtable to Map? I brought this up almost two
>>years ago (http://helma.org/archives/xmlrpc/2000-April/000007.html),
>>but at the time many folks were counting on 1.1 compatibility.
>>
>
> I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
> 1.2 and higher. With 1.4 right around the corner, and the rich set of
> collections offered by 1.2, it is definitely a step in the right
> direction.
>
> Can I get some +1's on this from committers, please?
Yes, I guess it's about time.
+1
Hannes
Re: Dropping JDK 1.1 compatibility
Posted by Timothy Peierls <ti...@peierls.net>.
Dan Rall wrote:
> I would like to propose that we drop JDK 1.1 compatibility in favor of
> 1.2 and higher.
If/when this is approved, I'd like to suggest that backward compatibility
with Vector and Hashtable be maintained by
1) adding XmlRpc class properties that determine which implementations
of List and Map should be used when converting <array> and <struct>
arguments and results to Java objects, and
2) adding a backward compatibility class boolean that produces the
old behavior without having to do anything else.
Defaults for 1) would be ArrayList and HashMap. (Going from Java to
<array> and <struct> is no problem: anything implementing List is
an <array> and anything implementing Map is a <struct>.)
--tim