You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> on 2000/03/28 12:36:54 UTC
JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
rubys@us.ibm.com wrote:
> From my perspective, I don't believe that Cocoon is merely a toy, so I
> personally would be more conservative.
While everybody agrees that JDK 1.2 is the way to go (or even 1.3 if we
wait a little more), there are very few things that make it impossible
to develop Cocoon on a 1.1 platform.
In fact, Cocoon 1.x _is_ a 1.1 application as all the other java
projects hosted by the ASF.
There are a couple of things that 1.2 will make a difference with, they
are:
- memory store (for the use of soft references... even if current
implementations do not seem to be that good)
- everything that requires java2d (raster generation)
everything else can be restated as follows:
- security -> the servlet engine should deal with this
- collections -> we'll use the 1.1 backported collection framework and
later update the import statements.... simple transition
- classloading -> the classloader problem appears to be a jserv
problem... even if not easy to solve, we might hack around it
internally... This does not require 1.2
So, my (hopefully final) proposal is:
1) in core, keep 1.1 compatibiliy
2) where absolutely necessary use 1.2, but only in components
3) if possible, give 1.1 alternatives to the 1.2 components
What do you think?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
Re: JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
Posted by Ross Burton <ro...@mail.com>.
> So, my (hopefully final) proposal is:
>
> 1) in core, keep 1.1 compatibiliy
> 2) where absolutely necessary use 1.2, but only in components
> 3) if possible, give 1.1 alternatives to the 1.2 components
>
> What do you think?
Excellent news:
+1
Ross
Re: JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> > So, my (hopefully final) proposal is:
> >
> > 1) in core, keep 1.1 compatibiliy
> > 2) where absolutely necessary use 1.2, but only in components
> > 3) if possible, give 1.1 alternatives to the 1.2 components
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I think that Pier is revolting :o)
No, he's asking for clarification.
So I believe we agreed on my proposal to base the core on 1.1 features
and put all 1.2 specific code in detachable components.
Also, I'm all in favor of using the Collection classes using the 1.1
backport.
So, this is how we stand today.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
Re: JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
Posted by Pierpaolo Fumagalli <pi...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> > What do you think?
>
> I think that Pier is revolting :o)
Pier is so happy in those days that even a close encounter with a bus
while crossing a street would be more then welcome... :)
Pier
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
pier: stable structure erected over water to allow docking of seacraft
<ma...@betaversion.org> <http://www.betaversion.org/~pier/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@localbar.com>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> So, my (hopefully final) proposal is:
>
> 1) in core, keep 1.1 compatibiliy
> 2) where absolutely necessary use 1.2, but only in components
> 3) if possible, give 1.1 alternatives to the 1.2 components
>
> What do you think?
I think that Pier is revolting :o)
Also; I suggest that 1.2 is required for recompilation of the package,
since then certain sections can have conditionals of how to handle the
situation. Especially classloading.
Niclas
RE: JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
Posted by Gerard van Enk <ge...@eo.nl>.
> Gerard van Enk wrote:
>
> > When will 1.2 be adopted by the ASF???
>
> Of course, I cannot speak for the ASF and, even more, I cannot speak for
> this project, so I speak for myself:
>
> we'll move to JDK 1.2 when there is need for it.
>
> And Cocoon2 will have parts that will be 1.2 based but will try to make
> it easier for all users to make this transition as much painless as
> possible.
>
> There are companies that are _investing_ on this project. Big bucks, I
> might say.
>
> We, as a group, have the industrial responsibility to provide good
> software and the open source responsibility to keep the community
> together.
>
> I should point out that the second goal is many times harder than the
> first one (things that few commercial companies understand today!).
>
> So, while there is an urgent need for evolution, solid reasons not to
> throw away 1.1 compatibility were posed and since, after careful
> evaluatation, I found no specific need to have 1.1 incompatible code in
> cocoon's core, I made my proposal.
>
> I'm more than willing to upgrade to a newer java version ASAP but I
> don't want to even slightly create forking frictions in this project.
>
> Broken software can be repaired. Fragmented communities cannot.
>
ok, now I'm completely +1
;-)
Gerard
Re: JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Gerard van Enk wrote:
> When will 1.2 be adopted by the ASF???
Of course, I cannot speak for the ASF and, even more, I cannot speak for
this project, so I speak for myself:
we'll move to JDK 1.2 when there is need for it.
And Cocoon2 will have parts that will be 1.2 based but will try to make
it easier for all users to make this transition as much painless as
possible.
There are companies that are _investing_ on this project. Big bucks, I
might say.
We, as a group, have the industrial responsibility to provide good
software and the open source responsibility to keep the community
together.
I should point out that the second goal is many times harder than the
first one (things that few commercial companies understand today!).
So, while there is an urgent need for evolution, solid reasons not to
throw away 1.1 compatibility were posed and since, after careful
evaluatation, I found no specific need to have 1.1 incompatible code in
cocoon's core, I made my proposal.
I'm more than willing to upgrade to a newer java version ASAP but I
don't want to even slightly create forking frictions in this project.
Broken software can be repaired. Fragmented communities cannot.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
RE: JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
Posted by Gerard van Enk <ge...@eo.nl>.
> So, my (hopefully final) proposal is:
>
> 1) in core, keep 1.1 compatibiliy
If it's absolutely necessary to keep 1.1 compatibility, +1
> 2) where absolutely necessary use 1.2, but only in components
> 3) if possible, give 1.1 alternatives to the 1.2 components
Isn't this going to take a lot of resources? If you come up with something
that's working with 1.2, you need time to get it working on 1.1.......
When will 1.2 be adopted by the ASF???
Gerard
Re: JDK 1.2 vs 1.1: my final proposal
Posted by Donald Ball <ba...@webslingerZ.com>.
> So, my (hopefully final) proposal is:
>
> 1) in core, keep 1.1 compatibiliy
> 2) where absolutely necessary use 1.2, but only in components
> 3) if possible, give 1.1 alternatives to the 1.2 components
>
> What do you think?
+1
- donald