You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net> on 2004/03/01 04:41:29 UTC
[VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Hi:
Many was talked about this topic. I think it not need a large explanation:
The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK supported for the
next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are supporting also 1.3 but
seems like few people is using it.
Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in Cocoon 2.2?
Here is my +1
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
RE: Stream vs Mapped IO (was Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2)
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
I'm not against considering 1.4 for 2.2, but please have in mind
that we have to maintain 2.1.x first which is JDK 1.3 based and
we need a replacement for Jisp there.
Carsten
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Jorg Heymans
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:33 AM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Stream vs Mapped IO (was Re: [VOTE] - Entry level
> JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2)
>
> Has anyone else read Bruce Eckel's "Thinking in Java" ?
>
> <quote> (chapter 12)
> Although the performance of "old" stream I/O has been
> improved by implementing it with nio, mapped file access
> tends to be dramatically faster.
> </quote>
>
> So by switching to 1.4 and *not* using NIO you're likely to
> get a speed bump already.
>
> However switching to mapped file access (as was suggested
> before using memory mapped files) from traditional stream IO
> would gain the most significant increase.
>
> <quote>
> Stream Write: 1719
> Mapped Write: 359
> Stream Read: 750
> Mapped Read: 125
> Stream Read/Write: 5188
> Mapped Read/Write: 16
> </quote>
>
> I am getting similar results over various runs. The test
> program is attached (needs the test harness classes to run,
> but you can see what he's doing)
>
> The third edition including code samples is freely available
> from http://mindview.net/Books/DownloadSites
>
> I hope this helps making the decision 1.4 vs 1.3. I also
> started a poll on the userlist to get a feeling of what the
> installed userbase is using at the moment. I'll gather some
> stats and report back.
>
>
> Regards
> Jorg
>
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
> > Hi:
> >
> > Many was talked about this topic. I think it not need a
> large explanation:
> >
> > The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK
> supported for
> > the next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are
> supporting also
> > 1.3 but seems like few people is using it.
> >
> > Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version
> supported in Cocoon 2.2?
> >
> > Here is my +1
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Antonio Gallardo
> >
>
Stream vs Mapped IO (was Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon
2.2)
Posted by Jorg Heymans <jh...@domek.be>.
Has anyone else read Bruce Eckel's "Thinking in Java" ?
<quote> (chapter 12)
Although the performance of “old” stream I/O has been improved by
implementing it with nio, mapped file access tends to be dramatically
faster.
</quote>
So by switching to 1.4 and *not* using NIO you're likely to get a speed
bump already.
However switching to mapped file access (as was suggested before using
memory mapped files) from traditional stream IO would gain the most
significant increase.
<quote>
Stream Write: 1719
Mapped Write: 359
Stream Read: 750
Mapped Read: 125
Stream Read/Write: 5188
Mapped Read/Write: 16
</quote>
I am getting similar results over various runs. The test program is
attached (needs the test harness classes to run, but you can see what
he's doing)
The third edition including code samples is freely available from
http://mindview.net/Books/DownloadSites
I hope this helps making the decision 1.4 vs 1.3. I also started a poll
on the userlist to get a feeling of what the installed userbase is using
at the moment. I'll gather some stats and report back.
Regards
Jorg
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Many was talked about this topic. I think it not need a large explanation:
>
> The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK supported for the
> next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are supporting also 1.3 but
> seems like few people is using it.
>
> Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in Cocoon 2.2?
>
> Here is my +1
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Antonio Gallardo
>
Re: Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Christoph Gaffga <cg...@triplemind.com>.
> Did you solve your problems with running ant using JDK? I proposed to
> run Ant with a JRE < 1.5 and use the 1.5 compiler explicitly in the
> <javac> task of Ant. Did you try this?
no, I haven't tried yet. I just started build with JAVA_HOME pointing to 1.5
and getting an error like:
Buildfile: build.xml
init-tasks:
Compiling 2 source files to /home/cgaffga/data/cocoon-2.1.4/tools/anttasks
javac: source release 1.4 requires target release 1.4
BUILD FAILED
/home/cgaffga/data/cocoon-2.1.4/tools/targets/init-build.xml:132: Compile
failed; see the compiler error output for details.
So I had a look at init-build.xml, but couldn't figure out what went wrong.
But for seems that it has something to do with changed -target param in
javac.
http://stefanbodewig.blogger.de/20040112/
As soon as I have some time, I will try with JRE 1.4 nad javac from 1.5
regards
Christoph Gaffga
cgaffga@triplemind.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reinhard Pötz" <re...@apache.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.text.xml.cocoon.devel
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
> Christoph Gaffga wrote:
>
> >>The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK supported for
the
> >>next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are supporting also 1.3
but
> >>seems like few people is using it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >but what about the maximum support JDK? I tried to compile with 1.5beta,
but
> >it didn't work. So I compiled with 1.4 and let it run with 1.5. The gc
ist
> >much better with 1.5!
> >
> >
> Did you solve your problems with running ant using JDK? I proposed to
> run Ant with a JRE < 1.5 and use the 1.5 compiler explicitly in the
> <javac> task of Ant. Did you try this?
>
> --
> Reinhard
>
>
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>Reinhard Pötz dijo:
>
>
>>Did you solve your problems with running ant using JDK? I proposed to
>>run Ant with a JRE < 1.5 and use the 1.5 compiler explicitly in the
>><javac> task of Ant. Did you try this?
>>
>>
>
>It would be fine to already include it in the build system. Soon or later
>we will need to make the change. Doing it right now, will encourge more
>people to let do a try.
>
>
Yes, we could make the compiler configurable. If I have some time I'll
make the change.
--
Reinhard
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Reinhard Pötz dijo:
> Did you solve your problems with running ant using JDK? I proposed to
> run Ant with a JRE < 1.5 and use the 1.5 compiler explicitly in the
> <javac> task of Ant. Did you try this?
It would be fine to already include it in the build system. Soon or later
we will need to make the change. Doing it right now, will encourge more
people to let do a try.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Christoph Gaffga wrote:
>>The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK supported for the
>>next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are supporting also 1.3 but
>>seems like few people is using it.
>>
>>
>
>but what about the maximum support JDK? I tried to compile with 1.5beta, but
>it didn't work. So I compiled with 1.4 and let it run with 1.5. The gc ist
>much better with 1.5!
>
>
Did you solve your problems with running ant using JDK? I proposed to
run Ant with a JRE < 1.5 and use the 1.5 compiler explicitly in the
<javac> task of Ant. Did you try this?
--
Reinhard
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Christoph Gaffga wrote:
>>The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK supported for the
>>next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are supporting also 1.3 but
>>seems like few people is using it.
>
>
> but what about the maximum support JDK? I tried to compile with 1.5beta, but
> it didn't work.
I don't think "didn't work" gives us enough info on how to fix it :-)
> So I compiled with 1.4 and let it run with 1.5. The gc ist
> much better with 1.5!
Of course, we should try to work on all the upper versions as well... as
long as it's our fault and not theirs, though.
--
Stefano.
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Christoph Gaffga <cg...@triplemind.com>.
> The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK supported for the
> next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are supporting also 1.3 but
> seems like few people is using it.
but what about the maximum support JDK? I tried to compile with 1.5beta, but
it didn't work. So I compiled with 1.4 and let it run with 1.5. The gc ist
much better with 1.5!
regards
Christoph
cgaffga@triplemind.com
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> using RegEx in the 2.2 sitemap would be a killer
I thought we already had regexp in the sitemap.
--
Stefano, puzzled
Re: Regexps (was Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2)
Posted by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> IIRC, ORO is not used by sitemap. Rather, CForms has direct dependecies
> on ORO.
Might be worthwile checking if 1.4 regexps are good enough for the task.
> PS I heard that 1.4.0 regexp was not good:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-regexp-user&m=106588023307749&w=2
Oh, well, since "1.4.1 fixes most bugs", we can mandate 1.4.1 or even
1.4.2 ;-).
Ugo
Re: Regexps (was Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2)
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> * Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it> [2004-03-03 08:15]:
>>
>>> Probably just the fact that we'd ship one less JAR file.
>>
>> That was my point.
>>
>> (Though a change would break sitemaps depending on ORO specific
>> patterns,
>> if there is such a thing.)
>
>
> At the cost of breaking some sitemaps, and since it's more or less
> clear that we're going to require JDK 1.4 for 2.2, I'll probably
> propose to drop Jakarta ORO in favour of the JDK's package (unless
> it's seriously broken) ... travel light.
IIRC, ORO is not used by sitemap. Rather, CForms has direct dependecies
on ORO.
PS I heard that 1.4.0 regexp was not good:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-regexp-user&m=106588023307749&w=2
Vadim
Regexps (was Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2)
Posted by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it>.
Alan wrote:
> * Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it> [2004-03-03 08:15]:
>>Probably just the fact that we'd ship one less JAR file.
> That was my point.
>
> (Though a change would break sitemaps depending on ORO specific patterns,
> if there is such a thing.)
At the cost of breaking some sitemaps, and since it's more or less clear
that we're going to require JDK 1.4 for 2.2, I'll probably propose to
drop Jakarta ORO in favour of the JDK's package (unless it's seriously
broken) ... travel light.
Ugo
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Alan <al...@engrm.com>.
* Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it> [2004-03-03 08:15]:
> Martin Holz wrote:
> >does Sun regex offer any significant advantages over ORO or jakarta
> >regexp ? Just curious.
>
> Probably just the fact that we'd ship one less JAR file.
That was my point.
(Though a change would break sitemaps depending on ORO specific patterns,
if there is such a thing.)
--
Alan / alan@engrm.com / http://engrm.com/
aim/yim: alanengrm - icq: 228631855 - msn: alanengrm@hotmail.com
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it>.
Martin Holz wrote:
> does Sun regex offer any significant advantages over ORO or jakarta
> regexp ? Just curious.
Probably just the fact that we'd ship one less JAR file.
Ugo
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Martin Holz <ho...@fiz-chemie.de>.
Hello Pier,
Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org> writes:
> NIO is nice (indeed) for a bunch of things, and as Alan pointed out,
> using RegEx in the 2.2 sitemap would be a killer, but IMVHO for this
> release we have MUCH BIGGER fishes to fry: blocks and continuations.
does Sun regex offer any significant advantages over ORO or jakarta
regexp ? Just curious.
Martin
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
On 1 Mar 2004, at 08:33, Ugo Cei wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in
>> Cocoon 2.2?
>> Here is my +1
>
> -0.5
>
> Even though 1.4 is available for most platforms, and I've been using
> it exclusively for quite a long time, I still think there are many
> environments where people are forced to use 1.3 (not to mention 1.2)
> and upgrading wouldn't be an easy task.
>
> If, and when, we have something that absolutely requires 1.4 (say, a
> new caching system based on NIO, like Pier suggested), we might
> reconsider this requirement. Doing it now would just alienate many
> users without really buying us anything important.
>
> I suggest to repeat this vote when we have a proposed time frame for
> the release of 2.2.
I wanted for someone to pull out a vote on this one (not me) because
I'm going to vote (as Ugo) -0.5 for the REQUIREMENT of Cocoon 2.2 to
operate only on J2SDK >= 1.4.
Ok, don't get me wrong, I am the one who initially said it would be so
cool, but I believe that for 2.2 we have much bigger fishes to fry.
NIO is nice (indeed) for a bunch of things, and as Alan pointed out,
using RegEx in the 2.2 sitemap would be a killer, but IMVHO for this
release we have MUCH BIGGER fishes to fry: blocks and continuations.
Continuations, well, easy... We're still running on a forked JavaScript
interpreter, and personally I don't care much about any other language
:-D
And I started picking back on Avalon and family in the past few weeks
to deploy some stuff, and yeah, it's a nice package, but I still don't
understand the full complexity of why certain approaches (to my mind
counterproductive) were chosen...
IMVHO, 2.2 should be focused on the platform, blocks, compoents,
continuations to a SOLID and STABLE implementation (did Stefano say few
months ago that he felt like we were building sand?). I do feel that
the Cocoon might somehow in some very limited case going off without
solidifying its foundations, and this (2.2) is one good opportunity to
put some solid concrete down there, EVERYWHERE...
A cache based on NIO? Fine, if it's a block, I can swap it in at any
time. RegEx for the sitemap? If matchers are pluggable, it's fairly
easy.
So, IMVHO, yes, 2.2 could be a requirement for some blocks, but someone
(and not me :-) has to shake the foundations, and put some concrete
where we need it...
We'll have components based on 1.4, sure, but if we build our
architecture pluggable enough, well, I don't see how that would impact
people running 1.3.
On 1 Mar 2004, at 18:37, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> We don't have to decide right now, but I think it would be good to
> give the signal "please go ahead and experiment if you think it makes
> sense, we'll judge depending on the advantages".
I'd say, let's keep 1.4 in mind in solidifying the foundations, and
let's grasp those advantages we can get now out of it by deploying a
modular architecture... The strict requirement can come later on, when
we'll have to decouple cocoon from it's Connection/Thread paradigm and
move the network stack away from the blocking model.
Pier
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Geoff Howard wrote:
> Ugo Cei wrote:
>
>> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>>> Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in
>>> Cocoon 2.2?
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>>
>> -0.5
>>
>> Even though 1.4 is available for most platforms, and I've been using
>> it exclusively for quite a long time, I still think there are many
>> environments where people are forced to use 1.3 (not to mention 1.2)
>> and upgrading wouldn't be an easy task.
>
>
>
> Does anyone here have any direct experience with such a situation? I
> am having a hard time imagining a case where a new development effort
> would be forced for technical reasons not to deploy on a newer
> backwards compatible jdk. Old 1.3 code will run (in some cases after
> recompilation), and old projects can still use whatever jvm version
> they need. But a new project based on a new version of Cocoon? Ok, a
> 2.1 project may want to upgrade but my experiences have shown
> upgrading jvm generally painless compared to upgrading Cocoon versions...
Yes I have. But I think it's okay if 2.1 has JDK1.3 as minimum JVM and
Cocoon 2.2 JDK1.4 because it will take some time until the 2.2 branch
will be released and marked as stable. And I don't think that those
organizations use unstable software ;-)
--
Reinhard
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Geoff Howard <co...@leverageweb.com>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in
>> Cocoon 2.2?
>>
>> Here is my +1
>
>
> -0.5
>
> Even though 1.4 is available for most platforms, and I've been using
> it exclusively for quite a long time, I still think there are many
> environments where people are forced to use 1.3 (not to mention 1.2)
> and upgrading wouldn't be an easy task.
Does anyone here have any direct experience with such a situation? I am
having a hard time imagining a case where a new development effort would
be forced for technical reasons not to deploy on a newer backwards
compatible jdk. Old 1.3 code will run (in some cases after
recompilation), and old projects can still use whatever jvm version they
need. But a new project based on a new version of Cocoon? Ok, a 2.1
project may want to upgrade but my experiences have shown upgrading jvm
generally painless compared to upgrading Cocoon versions...
Geoff
> If, and when, we have something that absolutely requires 1.4 (say, a
> new caching system based on NIO, like Pier suggested), we might
> reconsider this requirement. Doing it now would just alienate many
> users without really buying us anything important.
>
> I suggest to repeat this vote when we have a proposed time frame for
> the release of 2.2.
>
> Ugo
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> Ugo Cei wrote:
>>
>>> Since we don't have a NIO-based implementation of the persistent
>>> store, yet, why upgrade now? When we have it, I'll be more than
>>> willing to vote +1.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ugo,
>>
>> this is chicken-egg problem: nobody is going to implement something on
>> 1.4-only API if they aren't sure the community is going to accept it.
>>
>> We don't have to decide right now, but I think it would be good to
>> give the signal "please go ahead and experiment if you think it makes
>> sense, we'll judge depending on the advantages".
>>
>> WDYT?
>
>
> This is exactly what I'm trying to say: "Go ahead and experiment. When
> you have something to show, be certain that we won't require
> compatibility with 1.3 anymore, just for the sake of it. We'll judge
> depending on the advantages, when we have something to base our judgment
> on".
>
> This is why I voted -0.5 and not -1, not to pose a veto but to signify
> that we shouldn't abandon compatibility with 1.3 just because we might
> exploit some cool new feature of 1.4 someday.
>
> Anyway, if most committers want to switch to 1.4 _now_, I have nothing
> personally against it. I've been using 1.4 exclusively for more than I
> can remember and have recently aligned a bunch of applications to Cocoon
> 2.1.4, JDK 1.4.2 and Tomcat 5.0.18 (unfortunately 5.0.19 was released a
> couple of days later) and I plan to migrate some more in the coming weeks.
Great, seems like we have consensus then.
--
Stefano.
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Ugo Cei wrote:
>
>> Since we don't have a NIO-based implementation of the persistent
>> store, yet, why upgrade now? When we have it, I'll be more than
>> willing to vote +1.
>
>
> Ugo,
>
> this is chicken-egg problem: nobody is going to implement something on
> 1.4-only API if they aren't sure the community is going to accept it.
>
> We don't have to decide right now, but I think it would be good to give
> the signal "please go ahead and experiment if you think it makes sense,
> we'll judge depending on the advantages".
>
> WDYT?
This is exactly what I'm trying to say: "Go ahead and experiment. When
you have something to show, be certain that we won't require
compatibility with 1.3 anymore, just for the sake of it. We'll judge
depending on the advantages, when we have something to base our judgment
on".
This is why I voted -0.5 and not -1, not to pose a veto but to signify
that we shouldn't abandon compatibility with 1.3 just because we might
exploit some cool new feature of 1.4 someday.
Anyway, if most committers want to switch to 1.4 _now_, I have nothing
personally against it. I've been using 1.4 exclusively for more than I
can remember and have recently aligned a bunch of applications to Cocoon
2.1.4, JDK 1.4.2 and Tomcat 5.0.18 (unfortunately 5.0.19 was released a
couple of days later) and I plan to migrate some more in the coming weeks.
Ugo
RE: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:joerg.heinicke@gmx.de]
>
> But if someone provides a really useful 1.4 thing
> like the mentioned "NIO-based implementation of the persistent store"
> I'm for 1.4 of course.
I'm more of a user than a developer of Cocoon, but I'd say that
if someone can provide a reasonable argument that 1.4 would bring
some useful things, I'd be for 1.4. I.e. no need to implement
the NIO-based store, just some statement to the effect that it
would bring performance benefits.
(In this case, even with non-blocking NIO reads and writes, you'll
still have to wait for the whole store.read() to finish, since the
rest of the system isn't built around a non-blocking architecture.
I therefore think that a NIO-based persistent store will not bring
any significant performance boost without some serious re-architecting.)
/LS
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 01.03.2004 19:37, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>> I think that as a software product that is known for its innovative
>>> nature it is *very* important in the interest of Cocoon to refuse
>>> being impaired by the immobility of bureaucracratic organisations. We
>>> are having a small crisis on our hands ATM regarding our persistent
>>> store component and if I was reading Pier correctly he was willing to
>>> dedicate some time towards a solution to this problem.
>>>
>>> One of the main attractions of the jdk 1.4 is its NIO package, and
>>> it's supposed to be a major improvement in Javas IO performance. With
>>> 1.4 being available for - what more than two years? - and 1.5 already
>>> on the horizon it is IMHO the right time to upgrade.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since we don't have a NIO-based implementation of the persistent
>> store, yet, why upgrade now? When we have it, I'll be more than
>> willing to vote +1.
>
>
> Ugo,
>
> this is chicken-egg problem: nobody is going to implement something on
> 1.4-only API if they aren't sure the community is going to accept it.
>
> We don't have to decide right now, but I think it would be good to give
> the signal "please go ahead and experiment if you think it makes sense,
> we'll judge depending on the advantages".
>
> WDYT?
I'm with Ugo: If there is no need to force the users to 1.4 I'm against
it (e.g. there was an issue about a different exception constructor not
available in 1.3). But if someone provides a really useful 1.4 thing
like the mentioned "NIO-based implementation of the persistent store"
I'm for 1.4 of course.
Joerg
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
> Agreed. But, please, somebody, [POLL] our userbase first.
There is already a pool. See the [POLL] in the user list.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Ugo Cei wrote:
>
>> Unico Hommes wrote:
>>
>>> I think that as a software product that is known for its innovative
>>> nature it is *very* important in the interest of Cocoon to refuse
>>> being impaired by the immobility of bureaucracratic organisations.
>>> We are having a small crisis on our hands ATM regarding our
>>> persistent store component and if I was reading Pier correctly he
>>> was willing to dedicate some time towards a solution to this problem.
>>>
>>> One of the main attractions of the jdk 1.4 is its NIO package, and
>>> it's supposed to be a major improvement in Javas IO performance.
>>> With 1.4 being available for - what more than two years? - and 1.5
>>> already on the horizon it is IMHO the right time to upgrade.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since we don't have a NIO-based implementation of the persistent
>> store, yet, why upgrade now? When we have it, I'll be more than
>> willing to vote +1.
>
>
> Ugo,
>
> this is chicken-egg problem: nobody is going to implement something on
> 1.4-only API if they aren't sure the community is going to accept it.
>
> We don't have to decide right now, but I think it would be good to
> give the signal "please go ahead and experiment if you think it makes
> sense, we'll judge depending on the advantages".
>
> WDYT?
Agreed. But, please, somebody, [POLL] our userbase first.
Vadim
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> Unico Hommes wrote:
>
>> I think that as a software product that is known for its innovative
>> nature it is *very* important in the interest of Cocoon to refuse
>> being impaired by the immobility of bureaucracratic organisations. We
>> are having a small crisis on our hands ATM regarding our persistent
>> store component and if I was reading Pier correctly he was willing to
>> dedicate some time towards a solution to this problem.
>>
>> One of the main attractions of the jdk 1.4 is its NIO package, and
>> it's supposed to be a major improvement in Javas IO performance. With
>> 1.4 being available for - what more than two years? - and 1.5 already
>> on the horizon it is IMHO the right time to upgrade.
>
>
> Since we don't have a NIO-based implementation of the persistent store,
> yet, why upgrade now? When we have it, I'll be more than willing to vote
> +1.
Ugo,
this is chicken-egg problem: nobody is going to implement something on
1.4-only API if they aren't sure the community is going to accept it.
We don't have to decide right now, but I think it would be good to give
the signal "please go ahead and experiment if you think it makes sense,
we'll judge depending on the advantages".
WDYT?
--
Stefano.
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it>.
Unico Hommes wrote:
> I think that as a software product that is known for its innovative
> nature it is *very* important in the interest of Cocoon to refuse being
> impaired by the immobility of bureaucracratic organisations. We are
> having a small crisis on our hands ATM regarding our persistent store
> component and if I was reading Pier correctly he was willing to dedicate
> some time towards a solution to this problem.
>
> One of the main attractions of the jdk 1.4 is its NIO package, and it's
> supposed to be a major improvement in Javas IO performance. With 1.4
> being available for - what more than two years? - and 1.5 already on the
> horizon it is IMHO the right time to upgrade.
Since we don't have a NIO-based implementation of the persistent store,
yet, why upgrade now? When we have it, I'll be more than willing to vote +1.
Ugo
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>.
David Crossley wrote:
>Ugo Cei wrote:
>
>
>>Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in Cocoon 2.2?
>>>
>>>Here is my +1
>>>
>>>
>>-0.5
>>
>>Even though 1.4 is available for most platforms, and I've been using it
>>exclusively for quite a long time, I still think there are many
>>environments where people are forced to use 1.3 (not to mention 1.2) and
>>upgrading wouldn't be an easy task.
>>
>>If, and when, we have something that absolutely requires 1.4 (say, a new
>>caching system based on NIO, like Pier suggested), we might reconsider
>>this requirement. Doing it now would just alienate many users without
>>really buying us anything important.
>>
>>I suggest to repeat this vote when we have a proposed time frame for the
>>release of 2.2.
>>
>>
>
>This question should probably be asked on the users mail list.
>
>There are lots of government agencies that are way behind.
>Version 1.3 is their limit and maybe even 1.2 in some cases.
>
>
>
I think that as a software product that is known for its innovative
nature it is *very* important in the interest of Cocoon to refuse being
impaired by the immobility of bureaucracratic organisations. We are
having a small crisis on our hands ATM regarding our persistent store
component and if I was reading Pier correctly he was willing to dedicate
some time towards a solution to this problem.
One of the main attractions of the jdk 1.4 is its NIO package, and it's
supposed to be a major improvement in Javas IO performance. With 1.4
being available for - what more than two years? - and 1.5 already on the
horizon it is IMHO the right time to upgrade.
+1 for 1.4
Unico
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ugo Cei wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> > Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in Cocoon 2.2?
> >
> > Here is my +1
>
> -0.5
>
> Even though 1.4 is available for most platforms, and I've been using it
> exclusively for quite a long time, I still think there are many
> environments where people are forced to use 1.3 (not to mention 1.2) and
> upgrading wouldn't be an easy task.
>
> If, and when, we have something that absolutely requires 1.4 (say, a new
> caching system based on NIO, like Pier suggested), we might reconsider
> this requirement. Doing it now would just alienate many users without
> really buying us anything important.
>
> I suggest to repeat this vote when we have a proposed time frame for the
> release of 2.2.
This question should probably be asked on the users mail list.
There are lots of government agencies that are way behind.
Version 1.3 is their limit and maybe even 1.2 in some cases.
We must be careful or we will exclude Cocoon from being used.
Pity.
--David
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in Cocoon 2.2?
>
> Here is my +1
-0.5
Even though 1.4 is available for most platforms, and I've been using it
exclusively for quite a long time, I still think there are many
environments where people are forced to use 1.3 (not to mention 1.2) and
upgrading wouldn't be an easy task.
If, and when, we have something that absolutely requires 1.4 (say, a new
caching system based on NIO, like Pier suggested), we might reconsider
this requirement. Doing it now would just alienate many users without
really buying us anything important.
I suggest to repeat this vote when we have a proposed time frame for the
release of 2.2.
Ugo
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Many was talked about this topic. I think it not need a large explanation:
>
> The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK supported for the
> next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are supporting also 1.3 but
> seems like few people is using it.
>
> Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in Cocoon 2.2?
>
> Here is my +1
+1
--
Stefano.
Re: [VOTE] - Entry level JSDK 1.4 in Cocoon 2.2
Posted by Bruno Dumon <br...@outerthought.org>.
On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 04:41, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Many was talked about this topic. I think it not need a large explanation:
>
> The idea is to set JSDK 1.4 as the minimum supported JDK supported for the
> next major release 2.2 of Cocoon. Currently we are supporting also 1.3 but
> seems like few people is using it.
>
> Do you agree with JSDK 1.4 as the lower Java version supported in Cocoon 2.2?
>
> Here is my +1
big +1
--
Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno@outerthought.org bruno@apache.org