You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@excalibur.apache.org by Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com> on 2007/02/22 12:01:30 UTC
Minimum JDK version
Hi all,
I am looking at how best fix bug #EXLBR-34. What is the minimum Java version
that we are currently supporting? Do we still need to support 1.3? Or is
it ok
to use 1.4 packages?
Cheers,
Leif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: Minimum JDK version
Posted by Petteri Räty <be...@gentoo.org>.
Leif Mortenson wrote:
> Aaron,
> It sounds like the sun APIs are still supported by Java 6, but will
> probably go away in
> Java 7. One option is provide two versions of the jar. One that works
> with 1.3 and
> the other that works with 1.4 and above.
>
> Maybe a better option is to require that the jar be built on 1.4 or
> above, but let it
> work on 1.3. I can do a class existence check on startup and then have
> two copies
> of the image generation based on a static flag. Breaking those two
> implementations
> into difference classes would make it cleaner.
> I have done something similar with the Java Service Wrapper. It
> requires 1.3 or
> above to build, but runs with java 1.2 without some features.
>
> Once people are using 1.4 and above, they are not going to need the
> JAI jars.
>
> Cheers,
> Leif
>
I am fine with this but please make it possible to build Excalibur
without JAI present via some property for example so then I will not
have to add JAI to dependencies as we only support >=1.4 on Gentoo any way.
Regards,
Petteri
Re: Minimum JDK version
Posted by J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>.
Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com> writes:
> Maybe a better option is to require that the jar be built on 1.4
> or above, but let it work on 1.3. I can do a class existence check
> on startup and then have two copies of the image generation based on
> a static flag. Breaking those two implementations into difference
> classes would make it cleaner. I have done something similar with
> the Java Service Wrapper. It requires 1.3 or above to build, but
> runs with java 1.2 without some features.
That would be better than requiring 1.4 so here's my +1 to that
solution.
--
jaaron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: Minimum JDK version
Posted by Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com>.
Aaron,
It sounds like the sun APIs are still supported by Java 6, but will
probably go away in
Java 7. One option is provide two versions of the jar. One that works
with 1.3 and
the other that works with 1.4 and above.
Maybe a better option is to require that the jar be built on 1.4 or
above, but let it
work on 1.3. I can do a class existence check on startup and then have
two copies
of the image generation based on a static flag. Breaking those two
implementations
into difference classes would make it cleaner.
I have done something similar with the Java Service Wrapper. It
requires 1.3 or
above to build, but runs with java 1.2 without some features.
Once people are using 1.4 and above, they are not going to need the
JAI jars.
Cheers,
Leif
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com> writes:
>
>
>> Leif Mortenson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I am looking at how best fix bug #EXLBR-34. What is the minimum Java version
>>> that we are currently supporting? Do we still need to support 1.3? Or is
>>> it ok to use 1.4 packages?
>>>
>> Hi Leif,
>>
>> Cocoon's maintenance 2.1 branch uses bunch of Excalibur libraries and has a Java
>> 1.3 requirement. Given that fact, I'd guess that Excalibur, de-facto, supports 1.3.
>>
>> Vadim
>>
>
> I agree that we should keep 1.3 compatibility. Excalibur is pretty
> stable and I know of installations still using 1.3.
>
> So is the only solution to add JAI to our list of dependencies?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: Minimum JDK version
Posted by J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com> writes:
> Leif Mortenson wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I am looking at how best fix bug #EXLBR-34. What is the minimum Java version
>> that we are currently supporting? Do we still need to support 1.3? Or is
>> it ok to use 1.4 packages?
>
> Hi Leif,
>
> Cocoon's maintenance 2.1 branch uses bunch of Excalibur libraries and has a Java
> 1.3 requirement. Given that fact, I'd guess that Excalibur, de-facto, supports 1.3.
>
> Vadim
I agree that we should keep 1.3 compatibility. Excalibur is pretty
stable and I know of installations still using 1.3.
So is the only solution to add JAI to our list of dependencies?
--
jaaron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: Minimum JDK version
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Leif Mortenson wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am looking at how best fix bug #EXLBR-34. What is the minimum Java version
> that we are currently supporting? Do we still need to support 1.3? Or is
> it ok to use 1.4 packages?
Hi Leif,
Cocoon's maintenance 2.1 branch uses bunch of Excalibur libraries and has a Java
1.3 requirement. Given that fact, I'd guess that Excalibur, de-facto, supports 1.3.
Vadim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org