You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> on 2006/11/15 17:48:50 UTC
Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Hi folks,
How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Brian McCallister <br...@pobox.com>.
On Nov 16, 2006, at 1:55 AM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> Don't be too afraid of changing major-versions - other companies
> routinely go much further than "one-uping": from 1.4 to 5.0 (:-)),
> and 2.6 to 7 (Solaris), and 3.11 to 95, 4.0 to 2000, 2000 to
> 'XP' (!), 4 to 6 (Netscape) and so on!! ;-)
> Tomcat peculiarly went from 5.0 to 5.5 on its java 1.4->1.5
> dependency change (which I believe they somewhat regret - that
> story is rather difficult to get across without "eh, say again?!"s).
AMQ has been good so far about major numbers meaning incompatible
wire format changes. I think this is a good idea, and a good thing to
remain consistent on.
-Brian
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Endre Stølsvik <Ap...@stolsvik.com>.
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> On 11/15/06, Endre Stølsvik <Ap...@stolsvik.com> wrote:
>> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
>> > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
>> > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>> >
>> > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
>> > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
>> > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
>> > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
>> > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>> >
>>
>> Rather big move for a minor version - why not call it ActiveMQ 5 instead
>> (It'll even align!).
>>
>
> lol.. good point. But I'd hate to have big increases without big
> functionality changes especially if the clients are still compatible
> with the 4.x stuff.
It is a rather big _requirement_ change, though?
(And you'll probably introduce some internal changes, and you'll remove
a large pile of code (the down-port of concurrent), and .. so on.. going
from Java 1.4 to 1.5.)
IMHO, the story "ActiveMQ 5 only works on java 1.5 ("5"), while ActiveMQ
4 is the older version that works on java 1.4 (and java 1.5)" would be
rather simple to tell, as opposed to exchanging those two versions with
"4.2" and "4.1".
Particularly since I'll bet that you'll have a rather long maintenance
story going with the "java 1.4" branch afterwards - so this won't be a
small nice little "dot-change", as such.
Don't be too afraid of changing major-versions - other companies
routinely go much further than "one-uping": from 1.4 to 5.0 (:-)), and
2.6 to 7 (Solaris), and 3.11 to 95, 4.0 to 2000, 2000 to 'XP' (!), 4 to
6 (Netscape) and so on!! ;-)
Tomcat peculiarly went from 5.0 to 5.5 on its java 1.4->1.5
dependency change (which I believe they somewhat regret - that story is
rather difficult to get across without "eh, say again?!"s).
>
>> Then keep ActiveMQ 4.x on 1.4.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Endre.
>>
>
>
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
On 11/15/06, Endre Stølsvik <Ap...@stolsvik.com> wrote:
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> >
> > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> >
>
> Rather big move for a minor version - why not call it ActiveMQ 5 instead
> (It'll even align!).
>
lol.. good point. But I'd hate to have big increases without big
functionality changes especially if the clients are still compatible
with the 4.x stuff.
> Then keep ActiveMQ 4.x on 1.4.
>
> Regards,
> Endre.
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Endre Stølsvik <Ap...@stolsvik.com>.
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
Rather big move for a minor version - why not call it ActiveMQ 5 instead
(It'll even align!).
Then keep ActiveMQ 4.x on 1.4.
Regards,
Endre.
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Well it looks like we have pretty good consensus on moving to java 5
I'll start updating the build shortly.
On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
> So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
about time :) -
+1
On 15 Nov 2006, at 16:48, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
> So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Brian McCallister <br...@apache.org>.
I am all for it, personally, with 1.6 due out any week now.
-Brian
On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
> So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Nov 15, 2006, at 9:10 AM, James Strachan wrote:
> We should switch to Java 5 for compilation and for the default release
> (since the concurrent stuff is faster & more bug free on Java 5) but
> maybe provide a retrotranslator version of the jars for those who
> can't move JVM.
>
> i.e. build on Java 5 only - but allow deployments on 1.4
+1
Regards,
Alan
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
As far as I know retrotranslator has a maven plugin, so it is just a
matter of build process ... I've used it in Ant build process and it
was pretty straightforward. The scenario was something like this:
- build the source 1.5
- pack it in a jar
- use retrotranslator to make it 1.4 compatible
- pack it in a 1.4 jar
It was a much simpler project then AMQ but I assume that it should do the trick
Regards,
Dejan
On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1.
> >
> > We should switch to Java 5 for compilation and for the default release
> > (since the concurrent stuff is faster & more bug free on Java 5) but
> > maybe provide a retrotranslator version of the jars for those who
> > can't move JVM.
> >
> > i.e. build on Java 5 only - but allow deployments on 1.4
> >
>
> I agree.. but I don't want to condition the switch to 1.5 on getting
> the retrotranslator stuff working first. If we get the
> retrotranslator stuff working.. well that should just be the gravy.
>
> > On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> > >
> > > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> > >
> > > So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Hiram
> > >
> > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > James
> > -------
> > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Agreed. Its very easy to use the 1.5 bytecode on 1.4 without any work
by just installing the retrotranslator JIT :)
On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1.
> >
> > We should switch to Java 5 for compilation and for the default release
> > (since the concurrent stuff is faster & more bug free on Java 5) but
> > maybe provide a retrotranslator version of the jars for those who
> > can't move JVM.
> >
> > i.e. build on Java 5 only - but allow deployments on 1.4
> >
>
> I agree.. but I don't want to condition the switch to 1.5 on getting
> the retrotranslator stuff working first. If we get the
> retrotranslator stuff working.. well that should just be the gravy.
>
> > On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> > >
> > > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> > >
> > > So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Hiram
> > >
> > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > James
> > -------
> > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
On 11/15/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1.
>
> We should switch to Java 5 for compilation and for the default release
> (since the concurrent stuff is faster & more bug free on Java 5) but
> maybe provide a retrotranslator version of the jars for those who
> can't move JVM.
>
> i.e. build on Java 5 only - but allow deployments on 1.4
>
I agree.. but I don't want to condition the switch to 1.5 on getting
the retrotranslator stuff working first. If we get the
retrotranslator stuff working.. well that should just be the gravy.
> On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> >
> > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> >
> > So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Kelly Campbell <ke...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 1.5, but perhaps keep the client-side 1.4 compatible?
On 11/15/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1.
>
> We should switch to Java 5 for compilation and for the default release
> (since the concurrent stuff is faster & more bug free on Java 5) but
> maybe provide a retrotranslator version of the jars for those who
> can't move JVM.
>
> i.e. build on Java 5 only - but allow deployments on 1.4
>
> On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> >
> > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> >
> > So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Nov 15, 2006, at 9:10 AM, James Strachan wrote:
> +1.
>
> We should switch to Java 5 for compilation and for the default release
> (since the concurrent stuff is faster & more bug free on Java 5) but
> maybe provide a retrotranslator version of the jars for those who
> can't move JVM.
>
> i.e. build on Java 5 only - but allow deployments on 1.4
+1
--jason
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1.
We should switch to Java 5 for compilation and for the default release
(since the concurrent stuff is faster & more bug free on Java 5) but
maybe provide a retrotranslator version of the jars for those who
can't move JVM.
i.e. build on Java 5 only - but allow deployments on 1.4
On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
> So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
How about for creation of META-INF/services files for FactoryFinder?
On 11/15/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It'd be good to use annotations for the xbean stuff
>
> On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > On 11/15/06, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sounds good.
> > > Do you plan to refactor some code to use generics, or other
> > > Java 5 features ?
> >
> > At a minimum we should switch to the Java 1.5 concurrent package.
> > Switch generics has an upside that it will make our code more type
> > safe but a downside that merging patches from 4.2.x <-> 4.1.x will be
> > more difficult.
> >
> > How about annotations?? any places where you think those would make more sense?
> >
> > >
> > > On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > > > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > > > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> > > >
> > > > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > > > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > > > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > > > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > > > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> > > >
> > > > So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Hiram
> > > >
> > > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Guillaume Nodet
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
It'd be good to use annotations for the xbean stuff
On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/06, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sounds good.
> > Do you plan to refactor some code to use generics, or other
> > Java 5 features ?
>
> At a minimum we should switch to the Java 1.5 concurrent package.
> Switch generics has an upside that it will make our code more type
> safe but a downside that merging patches from 4.2.x <-> 4.1.x will be
> more difficult.
>
> How about annotations?? any places where you think those would make more sense?
>
> >
> > On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> > >
> > > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> > >
> > > So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Hiram
> > >
> > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
On 11/15/06, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good.
> Do you plan to refactor some code to use generics, or other
> Java 5 features ?
At a minimum we should switch to the Java 1.5 concurrent package.
Switch generics has an upside that it will make our code more type
safe but a downside that merging patches from 4.2.x <-> 4.1.x will be
more difficult.
How about annotations?? any places where you think those would make more sense?
>
> On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> >
> > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> >
> > So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good.
Do you plan to refactor some code to use generics, or other
Java 5 features ?
On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
> So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1 with or without retrotranslator
-dain
On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
> So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Adrian Co <ac...@exist.com>.
+1 about time. :)
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
> So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
>
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Well..
I think we should get used to it. We should always keep at least 1
stable branch.
On 11/15/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> > for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> > has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
> >
> > We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> > Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> > figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> > run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> > into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
> >
> > So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
>
> Maybe this message should be CC'd to the activemq-user list to see how
> users feel about such a change. Keeping a 4.1.x branch alive might
> wind up being a lot of work WRT backporting fixes to the trunk.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
> Castor - http://castor.org/
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Switching to ActiveMQ 4.2 to Java 5???
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/15/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> How do you guys feel about switching the minimum run time requirement
> for ActiveMQ 4.2 to be Java 5?? I'm itching to do this since Java 5
> has a much better set of concurrent implementation.
>
> We can keep the 4.1.x branch alive as the Java 1.4 compatible version.
> Also I have a feeling that once we switch to Java 5, someone will
> figure out how to use retrotranslator to make our Java 5 binaries also
> run on Java 1.4. But I doubt anybody will make any efforts to look
> into that until we actually jump to Java 5.
>
> So what do you say? Shall we switch ??
Maybe this message should be CC'd to the activemq-user list to see how
users feel about such a change. Keeping a 4.1.x branch alive might
wind up being a lot of work WRT backporting fixes to the trunk.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Castor - http://castor.org/