You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> on 2007/03/28 01:43:02 UTC
Proposed Java version 1.4 and FOR-765
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 14:16 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
...
> > Proposed Java version to test this release is Java 1.4
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-765
It seems if we make it 1.5 we could close above issue as won't fix.
Why want we 1.4?
salu2
--
Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.org
Open Source Java & XML consulting, training and solutions
Re: Proposed Java version 1.4 and FOR-765
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Proposed Java version to test this release is Java 1.4
>
> Thanks for following up. This is something that
> we need to decide as part of the Release Plan.
> I see that people are already saying yes.
>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-765
> "forrest war and classpath issues with Jetty"
>
>> It seems if we make it 1.5 we could close above issue as won't fix.
>>
>> Why want we 1.4?
Because there are still a very large number of organisations that use 1.4
> My view is that we need more investigation of FOR-765.
> We need more people to test with different versions of
> Jetty/Apache Tomcat and Java 1.4 version.
> So far only me and i might have a bad Jetty config.
>
> I reckon that we should stick with Java 1.4 unless
> we really need to use specific features of Java 5.
> No need to just cut off part of our audience.
+1
I think this is one that we should all try and fix. U'll try and find
some time today to look at it.
Ross
RE: Proposed Java version 1.4 and FOR-765
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 17:11 +0800, Gav.... wrote:
...
>
> I came to the conclusion that we should stick to 1.4 as a minimum
> recommended version for this release and with me having no
> other issues gave my +1.
>
> If it turns out that Issue FOR-765 really does need Jave 1.5 then
> we need to consider making 1.5 the minimum recommended version -
> as I can't see 1.5 introducing any problems, or we delay FOR-765
> until 0.9 where we can see if we can make it run on 1.4 or then
> upgrade to 1.5
I agree that the issue should not be a blocker. I reckon we can add a
note in the release that people reported issues with 1.4 and jetty 6
standalone.
salu2
--
Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.org
Open Source Java consulting, training and solutions
RE: Proposed Java version 1.4 and FOR-765
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2007 10:43 AM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Java version 1.4 and FOR-765
>
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > ...
> > > > Proposed Java version to test this release is Java 1.4
>
> Thanks for following up. This is something that
> we need to decide as part of the Release Plan.
> I see that people are already saying yes.
>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-765
> "forrest war and classpath issues with Jetty"
>
> > It seems if we make it 1.5 we could close above issue as won't fix.
> >
> > Why want we 1.4?
>
> My view is that we need more investigation of FOR-765.
> We need more people to test with different versions of
> Jetty/Apache Tomcat and Java 1.4 version.
> So far only me and i might have a bad Jetty config.
>
> I reckon that we should stick with Java 1.4 unless
> we really need to use specific features of Java 5.
> No need to just cut off part of our audience.
>
> I reckon that many people still have application servers
> that only have Java 1.4 and not Java 5.
I initially thought as Thorsten did and like 0.7 was made java 1.4
minimum, we could make 0.8 a minimum of java 1.5. I know it worked
well when I used 1.4, and later on last year I upgraded to java 1.5
and noticed no difference - except the issue we are now facing with
FOR-765, to be honest I can not remember having any problems with
Tomcat then, I don't think I had Jetty installed at the time.
Some people may have a reliance as you say on needing 1.4 for other
applications -- it was a right PITA for me to upgrade my online
BAS reporting to 1.5 for instance.
For Windows and I'm sure for linux too, you can run different Java
versions side by side, for Forrest I assume it is just a matter of
pointing it to the appropriate version and making sure that both
versions are included in the Path file, and change the JAVA_HOME
variable in the Environment. A script can even be run, to set it
and then unset it again.
I came to the conclusion that we should stick to 1.4 as a minimum
recommended version for this release and with me having no
other issues gave my +1.
If it turns out that Issue FOR-765 really does need Jave 1.5 then
we need to consider making 1.5 the minimum recommended version -
as I can't see 1.5 introducing any problems, or we delay FOR-765
until 0.9 where we can see if we can make it run on 1.4 or then
upgrade to 1.5
Gav...
>
> -David
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 3/22/2007
> 7:44 AM
Re: Proposed Java version 1.4 and FOR-765
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> ...
> > > Proposed Java version to test this release is Java 1.4
Thanks for following up. This is something that
we need to decide as part of the Release Plan.
I see that people are already saying yes.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-765
"forrest war and classpath issues with Jetty"
> It seems if we make it 1.5 we could close above issue as won't fix.
>
> Why want we 1.4?
My view is that we need more investigation of FOR-765.
We need more people to test with different versions of
Jetty/Apache Tomcat and Java 1.4 version.
So far only me and i might have a bad Jetty config.
I reckon that we should stick with Java 1.4 unless
we really need to use specific features of Java 5.
No need to just cut off part of our audience.
I reckon that many people still have application servers
that only have Java 1.4 and not Java 5.
-David