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 "Mailing Lists (Aadi)" <ma...@clubmom-inc.com> on 2003/06/13 17:50:56 UTC
minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
one of the problems i'm trying to work out right now is fixing the start
scripts ( xindice.bat/xindice.sh ) and I just switched today to a 1.4.1
vm and the script all of a sudden worked. Switching back to the 1.3.1
VM gave me the same NumberFormatException as before.
If Xindice is going to 1.4+ only, then this isn't a problem, but if goal
is to be able to run under 1.3, then i will gladly continue the search
for a solution.
Thanks in advance,
-a
Re: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Posted by Murray Altheim <m....@open.ac.uk>.
Kevin Ross wrote:
> My vote, 1.4+
>
> BUT, that's just me. Everyone else? I'm afraid some people might be
> stuck on older vm(s) based on corporate policy or platform...Speak up
> everyone!
I'm on 1.4.1 but I'd say it's best to support 1.3 if at all possible,
as the 1.3 to 1.4 switch was a pretty big one. The big issue is *when*
to begin requiring 1.4, and given that Xindice is pretty cutting edge,
and very XML-related, it might be best to bite the bullet right now.
Then there'll be less installation problems, etc. when people upgrade
their JVMs and suddenly find Xindice works "differently".
I guess I've argued against my own point.
I vote 1.4. :-)
Murray
......................................................................
Murray Altheim <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/>
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK
Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
-- The Blue Cliff Record
Re: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Posted by "Mailing Lists (Aadi)" <ma...@clubmom-inc.com>.
I've submitted a patch for the bat and sh files to use straight jetty
and generate the classpath via the lcp.bat mechanism ( on Windows )
used by Ant and a couple other projects. I could spend some time and
get loader working, too, I'm sure, which also was pretty straightforward.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Kevin Ross wrote:
>
>> Do whatever you need to make it work. Less code is better and more
>> maintainable (either way). If we don't *need* to use forehead, then
>> lets not, unless of course, it is less code than the alternative.
>> You'll be able to tell best...
>
>
> Forehead was only a clever idea from werken: with a 11k jar you were
> able to have a cross platform configuration and just a jar in the
> classpath. Good idea, bad implementation, since it doesn't work, let's
> blast it. I would go for the Cocoon solution, taking the Loader class
> from there.
>
> Ciao,
>
Re: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Kevin Ross wrote:
> Do whatever you need to make it work. Less code is better and more
> maintainable (either way). If we don't *need* to use forehead, then
> lets not, unless of course, it is less code than the alternative.
> You'll be able to tell best...
Forehead was only a clever idea from werken: with a 11k jar you were
able to have a cross platform configuration and just a jar in the
classpath. Good idea, bad implementation, since it doesn't work, let's
blast it. I would go for the Cocoon solution, taking the Loader class
from there.
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l.
http://www.pro-netics.com
RE: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Posted by Kevin Ross <Ke...@iVerticalLeap.com>.
Do whatever you need to make it work. Less code is better and more
maintainable (either way). If we don't *need* to use forehead, then
lets not, unless of course, it is less code than the alternative.
You'll be able to tell best...
-Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Gianugo Rabellino [mailto:gianugo@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:38 AM
To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Mailing Lists (Aadi) wrote:
>>
>>
> i vote for 1.3 also ( same reason ) , so if consensus is reached on
> using 1.3, is it necessary to use Forehead to start up the jetty
server?
Please blast it at will. It was just a pleasant cross-platform shortcut
but given that it doesn't work, just go ahead and change it.
(+1 on 1.3 BTW)
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l.
http://www.pro-netics.com
Re: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Mailing Lists (Aadi) wrote:
>>
>>
> i vote for 1.3 also ( same reason ) , so if consensus is reached on
> using 1.3, is it necessary to use Forehead to start up the jetty server?
Please blast it at will. It was just a pleasant cross-platform shortcut
but given that it doesn't work, just go ahead and change it.
(+1 on 1.3 BTW)
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l.
http://www.pro-netics.com
Re: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Posted by "Mailing Lists (Aadi)" <ma...@clubmom-inc.com>.
Vladimir R. Bossicard wrote:
>>BUT, that's just me. Everyone else? I'm afraid some people might be
>>stuck on older vm(s) based on corporate policy or platform...Speak up
>>everyone!
>>
>>
>
>Exactly... => JVM 1.3
>
>-Vladimir
>
>
>
i vote for 1.3 also ( same reason ) , so if consensus is reached on
using 1.3, is it necessary to use Forehead to start up the jetty server?
It looks like the cocoon developers have moved away from using Forehead
also ( they're now using their own custom Loader class ).
Since this is a design/distribution question, I'll leave it up to the
more active amongst you to help guide me.
The thoughts that I had :
1) Get rid of forehead entirely and move to straight jetty. The upside
is that it works in all VM situations, the downside is that there's less
scriptability for those in MS environments ( though I don't feel we have
the script requirements that cocoon might )
2) Bring over the Loader class from Cocoon and port the scripts over to
do that. Upside is that you still get the script configurability of the
forehead tool. Downside is that it's new to the environment and
obviously does require some rework.
Of course, I'll wait till consensus is reached.
Thanks in advance,
-a
RE: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Posted by "Vladimir R. Bossicard" <vl...@bossicard.com>.
> BUT, that's just me. Everyone else? I'm afraid some people might be
> stuck on older vm(s) based on corporate policy or platform...Speak up
> everyone!
Exactly... => JVM 1.3
-Vladimir
--
Vladimir R. Bossicard
www.bossicard.com
RE: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
Posted by Kevin Ross <Ke...@iVerticalLeap.com>.
My vote, 1.4+
BUT, that's just me. Everyone else? I'm afraid some people might be
stuck on older vm(s) based on corporate policy or platform...Speak up
everyone!
-Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing Lists (Aadi) [mailto:mailinglists@clubmom-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:51 AM
To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: minimum jvm requirements for xindice 1.1?
one of the problems i'm trying to work out right now is fixing the start
scripts ( xindice.bat/xindice.sh ) and I just switched today to a 1.4.1
vm and the script all of a sudden worked. Switching back to the 1.3.1
VM gave me the same NumberFormatException as before.
If Xindice is going to 1.4+ only, then this isn't a problem, but if goal
is to be able to run under 1.3, then i will gladly continue the search
for a solution.
Thanks in advance,
-a