You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xindice-dev@xml.apache.org by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com> on 2007/05/11 02:21:08 UTC
[VOTE] Minimum Java Version
All,
I propose to set minimum required Java version for Xindice 1.2 and up to Java
1.4 because:
* 1.3 is already past EOL
* 1.3 has no NIO
* 1.3 is god slow on OS X :)
+1 from me.
Vadim
Re: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
On 5/11/07, Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I propose to set minimum required Java version for Xindice 1.2 and up to Java
> 1.4 because:
+1, go for it indeed!
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Sourcesense, making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com
(blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
Re: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Todd Byrne wrote:
> +1
Awesome! ;-)
Vadim
Re: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by Todd Byrne <to...@gmail.com>.
+1
Todd
On 5/11/07, Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com> wrote:
>
> Todd Byrne wrote:
> > As far as I know you can set source level to 1.5 and still compile for
> > 1.4 JVMs.
>
> I don't think it works this way?
> Gmail - [VOTE] Minimum Java Version<?auth=DQAAAHcAAABtTVhQqxbmJG-ALQ4EG-gL9I8fmM2HpSTs9YyguiPFgGbPYU43KFCHnuEHTzD1Xpfq74rq8Dy329HeuwI8k-xqCP20zRdYuvauTRlE8YkGiZEaUE4ZTuASPlafGK9oaulipWLB6jOMemaVAKuzW8YlY9ijOAk85yHGvbrPISR4wQ>
> compile.javac.target=1.4
> compile.javac.source=1.5
>
> compile-src:
> [javac] javac: source release 1.5 requires target release 1.5
>
>
> > All of the generics are backwards compatible. I have looked
> > through the build.properties file and I don't think it would me more
> > then a few changes to it and the build.xml.
>
> First you would have to determine what is the platform currently in used
> by the
> user base :) Only after that decision could be made.
>
>
> Anyway, getting back on-topic, what is your vote on moving to 1.4? You can
> vote
> one of 0 (don't care), +1 (yes), -1 (no, because: ...).
>
> Vadim
>
> > Todd
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/10/07, *Vadim Gritsenko* <vadim@reverycodes.com
> > <ma...@reverycodes.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Todd Byrne wrote:
> > > Why not 1.5?
> > >
> > > 1.5 feature set is immense.
> > >
> > > Any compiling reason not to move to at least that?
> >
> > I know I need Java 1.4 features immediately, so I want to make this
> > switch right
> > now for Xindice 1.2.
> >
> > Personally I'd like to avoid jumping to 1.5 without any released
> > Xindice version
> > in between, so I would suggest going to Java 1.5 in Xindice 1.3 time
> > frame.
> > However, if you ready to do the leg work, and if you have good
> > arguments for
> > doing this sooner, you can certainly start discussion about it.
> >
> > Vadim
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Todd Byrne wrote:
> As far as I know you can set source level to 1.5 and still compile for
> 1.4 JVMs.
I don't think it works this way?
compile.javac.target=1.4
compile.javac.source=1.5
compile-src:
[javac] javac: source release 1.5 requires target release 1.5
> All of the generics are backwards compatible. I have looked
> through the build.properties file and I don't think it would me more
> then a few changes to it and the build.xml.
First you would have to determine what is the platform currently in used by the
user base :) Only after that decision could be made.
Anyway, getting back on-topic, what is your vote on moving to 1.4? You can vote
one of 0 (don't care), +1 (yes), -1 (no, because: ...).
Vadim
> Todd
>
>
>
> On 5/10/07, *Vadim Gritsenko* <vadim@reverycodes.com
> <ma...@reverycodes.com>> wrote:
>
> Todd Byrne wrote:
> > Why not 1.5?
> >
> > 1.5 feature set is immense.
> >
> > Any compiling reason not to move to at least that?
>
> I know I need Java 1.4 features immediately, so I want to make this
> switch right
> now for Xindice 1.2.
>
> Personally I'd like to avoid jumping to 1.5 without any released
> Xindice version
> in between, so I would suggest going to Java 1.5 in Xindice 1.3 time
> frame.
> However, if you ready to do the leg work, and if you have good
> arguments for
> doing this sooner, you can certainly start discussion about it.
>
> Vadim
Re: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by Todd Byrne <to...@gmail.com>.
As far as I know you can set source level to 1.5 and still compile for
1.4JVMs. All of the generics are backwards compatible. I have looked
through
the build.properties file and I don't think it would me more then a few
changes to it and the build.xml.
Todd
On 5/10/07, Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com> wrote:
>
> Todd Byrne wrote:
> > Why not 1.5?
> >
> > 1.5 feature set is immense.
> >
> > Any compiling reason not to move to at least that?
>
> I know I need Java 1.4 features immediately, so I want to make this switch
> right
> now for Xindice 1.2.
>
> Personally I'd like to avoid jumping to 1.5 without any released Xindice
> version
> in between, so I would suggest going to Java 1.5 in Xindice 1.3 time
> frame.
> However, if you ready to do the leg work, and if you have good arguments
> for
> doing this sooner, you can certainly start discussion about it.
>
> Vadim
>
> > Todd
> > On 5/10/07, *Vadim Gritsenko* < vadim@reverycodes.com
> > <ma...@reverycodes.com>> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I propose to set minimum required Java version for Xindice 1.2 and
> > up to Java
> > 1.4 because:
> >
> > * 1.3 is already past EOL
> > * 1.3 has no NIO
> > * 1.3 is god slow on OS X :)
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > Vadim
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Todd Byrne wrote:
> Why not 1.5?
>
> 1.5 feature set is immense.
>
> Any compiling reason not to move to at least that?
I know I need Java 1.4 features immediately, so I want to make this switch right
now for Xindice 1.2.
Personally I'd like to avoid jumping to 1.5 without any released Xindice version
in between, so I would suggest going to Java 1.5 in Xindice 1.3 time frame.
However, if you ready to do the leg work, and if you have good arguments for
doing this sooner, you can certainly start discussion about it.
Vadim
> Todd
> On 5/10/07, *Vadim Gritsenko* < vadim@reverycodes.com
> <ma...@reverycodes.com>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I propose to set minimum required Java version for Xindice 1.2 and
> up to Java
> 1.4 because:
>
> * 1.3 is already past EOL
> * 1.3 has no NIO
> * 1.3 is god slow on OS X :)
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Vadim
Re: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by Todd Byrne <to...@gmail.com>.
Why not 1.5?
1.5 feature set is immense.
Any compiling reason not to move to at least that?
Todd
On 5/10/07, Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I propose to set minimum required Java version for Xindice 1.2 and up to
> Java
> 1.4 because:
>
> * 1.3 is already past EOL
> * 1.3 has no NIO
> * 1.3 is god slow on OS X :)
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Vadim
>
Re: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by Natalia Shilenkova <ns...@gmail.com>.
On 5/10/07, Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com> wrote:
> I propose to set minimum required Java version for Xindice 1.2 and up to Java
> 1.4 because:
Xindice definitely needs that, +1.
Natalia
RE: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
Posted by "Chapman, Carol" <Ca...@ANICO.com>.
+1 from this OS X user with gratitude.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:vadim@reverycodes.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:21 PM
To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Minimum Java Version
All,
I propose to set minimum required Java version for Xindice 1.2 and up to
Java
1.4 because:
* 1.3 is already past EOL
* 1.3 has no NIO
* 1.3 is god slow on OS X :)
+1 from me.
Vadim