You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> on 2006/11/27 01:08:40 UTC
[general] longer term roadmap
I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
not for me to say, but for us to say.
Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java SE 6
classlib changes...)
End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
does Java SE 7...")
geir
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>.
Seems we are keeping pace with RI.:)
On 11/27/06, spark shen <sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew Zhang 写道:
> > On 11/27/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I don't have a problem with these timelines. I think we probably need
> >> to start formalizing these plans a bit more. Perhaps set a target for
> >> a release candidate release of May. Also, I think this coincides
> >> nicely with establishing our branching/tagging policy (branch for JDK
> >> 5, trunk for JDK 6 and tags for each release, etc).
> >
> >
> > Branching/tagging sounds great! so that people can start contribuiting
> > right
> > away if they're interested in jdk6. :)
> +100.
> And I am interested in implementing J2SE 6 new feature.
> Best regards
> >
> > -Nathan
> >>
> >> On 11/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
> >> > not for me to say, but for us to say.
> >> >
> >> > Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
> >> >
> >> > End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java
> >> SE 6
> >> > classlib changes...)
> >> >
> >> > End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
> >> > does Java SE 7...")
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > geir
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by spark shen <sm...@gmail.com>.
Andrew Zhang 写道:
> On 11/27/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I don't have a problem with these timelines. I think we probably need
>> to start formalizing these plans a bit more. Perhaps set a target for
>> a release candidate release of May. Also, I think this coincides
>> nicely with establishing our branching/tagging policy (branch for JDK
>> 5, trunk for JDK 6 and tags for each release, etc).
>
>
> Branching/tagging sounds great! so that people can start contribuiting
> right
> away if they're interested in jdk6. :)
+100.
And I am interested in implementing J2SE 6 new feature.
Best regards
>
> -Nathan
>>
>> On 11/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
>> > not for me to say, but for us to say.
>> >
>> > Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
>> >
>> > End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java
>> SE 6
>> > classlib changes...)
>> >
>> > End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
>> > does Java SE 7...")
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > geir
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
On 11/27/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I don't have a problem with these timelines. I think we probably need
> to start formalizing these plans a bit more. Perhaps set a target for
> a release candidate release of May. Also, I think this coincides
> nicely with establishing our branching/tagging policy (branch for JDK
> 5, trunk for JDK 6 and tags for each release, etc).
Branching/tagging sounds great! so that people can start contribuiting right
away if they're interested in jdk6. :)
-Nathan
>
> On 11/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
> > not for me to say, but for us to say.
> >
> > Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
> >
> >
> >
> > Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
> >
> > End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java SE 6
> > classlib changes...)
> >
> > End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
> > does Java SE 7...")
> >
> >
> >
> > geir
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew Zhang
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
+1
I don't have a problem with these timelines. I think we probably need
to start formalizing these plans a bit more. Perhaps set a target for
a release candidate release of May. Also, I think this coincides
nicely with establishing our branching/tagging policy (branch for JDK
5, trunk for JDK 6 and tags for each release, etc).
-Nathan
On 11/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
> not for me to say, but for us to say.
>
> Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
>
>
>
> Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
>
> End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java SE 6
> classlib changes...)
>
> End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
> does Java SE 7...")
>
>
>
> geir
>
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Paulex Yang wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
>>>>>>> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example
>>>>>>> performance)
>>>>>> I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun
>>>>>> didn't have 5.1?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a version of the spec, and a version of the
>>>>> implementation, which are different.
>>>> If so, I prefer to Harmony 1.0(SE 5.0 compatible), 1.1(SE 5.0
>>>> compatible with performance enhancement) just like what Geronmo
>>>> does, rather than 5.0, 5.1, which is confusing.
>>>
>>> I think we should consider 5.0, 5.1 simply for marketing reasons and
>>> clarity.
>>>
>>> If I tell you that I'm running my program under "Harmony 5.1.2", you
>>> know exactly what spec version of Java I'm using, so you don't have
>>> to do the math to figure it out. Yeah, it's easy for 5, but once we
>>> have 7, that will have things like "Harmony 3.2.1" ?
>>>
>>> I think it might make it easier for users.
>> But what if Sun ships Java SE 5.1 someday? if Harmony already has
>> 5.1.2 which actually is Java SE 5.0 compatible, what should we do? It
>> may be not likely of Java 5, but possible for Java 6, 7...
>
> If Sun ships a Java 5.1
>
> a) I'll be really surprised
>
> b) I will get over it and not care.
>
> Sun ships an implementation of the spec. Yes, it's the RI, but the
> version of their implementation is meaningful *to them*, because it
> reflects things like bug fixes in their implementation, performance
> improvements, etc.
>
> IOW, comparing Harmony vX.Y.Z and Sun vX.Y.Z is meaningless, and
> there's no way we can ever provide meaning.
>
> However, if you are worried about that. I'm happy with
>
> <main_spec_ver>.<minor_spec_ver>.<impl_patchlevel>
>
> with minor_spec_ver being 0 always :)
>
>>
>> My point is: this is confusing, either we keep the Java SE spec
>> version intact like 5.0_12, or we use totally different version
>> number, like Geronimo, 1.0->J2EE 1.4. I cannot see why Harmony 5.1.2
>> is more clear than Harmony 5.0_12?
>
> Why do you consider it a spec version? There have been 7 updates to
> Sun's release of Java 5 : 1.5.0_01 through 1.5.0_08 and 2 updates to
> the java SE 5 spec. Clearly the updates to the binary are not spec
> updates, but implementation updates.
I'm not so sure just like most users, that's why I think it is more
clear to keep "5.0" :).
>
> How does IBM name their JRE releases?
This is output of IBM JDK on my machine, "1.5.0" is kept, and the patch
updates level are called "Service Refresh 2" (SR2)
> java -version:
java version "1.5.0"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build
pwi32dev-20060511 (SR2))
IBM J9 VM (build 2.3, J2RE 1.5.0 IBM J9 2.3 Windows XP x86-32
j9vmwi3223-20060504 (JIT enabled)
J9VM - 20060501_06428_lHdSMR
JIT - 20060428_1800_r8
GC - 20060501_AA)
JCL - 20060511a
>
> geir
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Paulex Yang wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>>> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
>>>>>> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
>>>>> I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun
>>>>> didn't have 5.1?
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> There is a version of the spec, and a version of the implementation,
>>>> which are different.
>>> If so, I prefer to Harmony 1.0(SE 5.0 compatible), 1.1(SE 5.0
>>> compatible with performance enhancement) just like what Geronmo does,
>>> rather than 5.0, 5.1, which is confusing.
>>
>> I think we should consider 5.0, 5.1 simply for marketing reasons and
>> clarity.
>>
>> If I tell you that I'm running my program under "Harmony 5.1.2", you
>> know exactly what spec version of Java I'm using, so you don't have to
>> do the math to figure it out. Yeah, it's easy for 5, but once we have
>> 7, that will have things like "Harmony 3.2.1" ?
>>
>> I think it might make it easier for users.
> But what if Sun ships Java SE 5.1 someday? if Harmony already has 5.1.2
> which actually is Java SE 5.0 compatible, what should we do? It may be
> not likely of Java 5, but possible for Java 6, 7...
If Sun ships a Java 5.1
a) I'll be really surprised
b) I will get over it and not care.
Sun ships an implementation of the spec. Yes, it's the RI, but the
version of their implementation is meaningful *to them*, because it
reflects things like bug fixes in their implementation, performance
improvements, etc.
IOW, comparing Harmony vX.Y.Z and Sun vX.Y.Z is meaningless, and there's
no way we can ever provide meaning.
However, if you are worried about that. I'm happy with
<main_spec_ver>.<minor_spec_ver>.<impl_patchlevel>
with minor_spec_ver being 0 always :)
>
> My point is: this is confusing, either we keep the Java SE spec version
> intact like 5.0_12, or we use totally different version number, like
> Geronimo, 1.0->J2EE 1.4. I cannot see why Harmony 5.1.2 is more clear
> than Harmony 5.0_12?
Why do you consider it a spec version? There have been 7 updates to
Sun's release of Java 5 : 1.5.0_01 through 1.5.0_08 and 2 updates to the
java SE 5 spec. Clearly the updates to the binary are not spec updates,
but implementation updates.
How does IBM name their JRE releases?
geir
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Paulex Yang wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
>>>>> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
>>>> I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun
>>>> didn't have 5.1?
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> There is a version of the spec, and a version of the implementation,
>>> which are different.
>> If so, I prefer to Harmony 1.0(SE 5.0 compatible), 1.1(SE 5.0
>> compatible with performance enhancement) just like what Geronmo does,
>> rather than 5.0, 5.1, which is confusing.
>
> I think we should consider 5.0, 5.1 simply for marketing reasons and
> clarity.
>
> If I tell you that I'm running my program under "Harmony 5.1.2", you
> know exactly what spec version of Java I'm using, so you don't have to
> do the math to figure it out. Yeah, it's easy for 5, but once we have
> 7, that will have things like "Harmony 3.2.1" ?
>
> I think it might make it easier for users.
But what if Sun ships Java SE 5.1 someday? if Harmony already has 5.1.2
which actually is Java SE 5.0 compatible, what should we do? It may be
not likely of Java 5, but possible for Java 6, 7...
My point is: this is confusing, either we keep the Java SE spec version
intact like 5.0_12, or we use totally different version number, like
Geronimo, 1.0->J2EE 1.4. I cannot see why Harmony 5.1.2 is more clear
than Harmony 5.0_12?
>
> geir
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Paulex Yang wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
>>>> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
>>> I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun didn't
>>> have 5.1?
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> There is a version of the spec, and a version of the implementation,
>> which are different.
> If so, I prefer to Harmony 1.0(SE 5.0 compatible), 1.1(SE 5.0 compatible
> with performance enhancement) just like what Geronmo does, rather than
> 5.0, 5.1, which is confusing.
I think we should consider 5.0, 5.1 simply for marketing reasons and
clarity.
If I tell you that I'm running my program under "Harmony 5.1.2", you
know exactly what spec version of Java I'm using, so you don't have to
do the math to figure it out. Yeah, it's easy for 5, but once we have
7, that will have things like "Harmony 3.2.1" ?
I think it might make it easier for users.
geir
>>
>> geir
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mikhail
>>>>
>>>> 2006/11/27, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>>>> I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
>>>>> not for me to say, but for us to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
>>>>>
>>>>> End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java
>>>>> SE 6
>>>>> classlib changes...)
>>>>>
>>>>> End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
>>>>> does Java SE 7...")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Paulex Yang wrote:
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
>>> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
>> I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun didn't
>> have 5.1?
>
> Why not?
>
> There is a version of the spec, and a version of the implementation,
> which are different.
If so, I prefer to Harmony 1.0(SE 5.0 compatible), 1.1(SE 5.0 compatible
with performance enhancement) just like what Geronmo does, rather than
5.0, 5.1, which is confusing.
>
> geir
>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mikhail
>>>
>>> 2006/11/27, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>>> I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
>>>> not for me to say, but for us to say.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
>>>>
>>>> End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java
>>>> SE 6
>>>> classlib changes...)
>>>>
>>>> End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
>>>> does Java SE 7...")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Paulex Yang wrote:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
>> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
> I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun didn't
> have 5.1?
Why not?
There is a version of the spec, and a version of the implementation,
which are different.
geir
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mikhail
>>
>> 2006/11/27, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>> I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
>>> not for me to say, but for us to say.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
>>>
>>> End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java SE 6
>>> classlib changes...)
>>>
>>> End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
>>> does Java SE 7...")
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
2006/11/27, Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
> > releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
> I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun didn't
> have 5.1?
yes, you are right. I've meant that we can have one more release for
the 5.0 spec
Thanks,
Mikhail
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > 2006/11/27, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
> >> I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
> >> not for me to say, but for us to say.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
> >>
> >> End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java SE 6
> >> classlib changes...)
> >>
> >> End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
> >> does Java SE 7...")
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Paulex Yang
> China Software Development Lab
> IBM
>
>
>
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun didn't
have 5.1?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/11/27, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>> I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
>> not for me to say, but for us to say.
>>
>> Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
>>
>> End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java SE 6
>> classlib changes...)
>>
>> End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
>> does Java SE 7...")
>>
>>
>>
>> geir
>>
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
Absolutely - I'm not suggesting that list was operational and complete,
but simply a basic "storyline" for the project.
geir
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/11/27, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>> I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
>> not for me to say, but for us to say.
>>
>> Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
>>
>> End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java SE 6
>> classlib changes...)
>>
>> End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
>> does Java SE 7...")
>>
>>
>>
>> geir
>>
Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/11/27, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
> I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
> not for me to say, but for us to say.
>
> Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
>
>
>
> Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
>
> End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java SE 6
> classlib changes...)
>
> End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
> does Java SE 7...")
>
>
>
> geir
>