Re: REDOM Design discussion.

[Jeffrey Rodriguez <je...@hotmail.com>]

Hi Elliote,

>>Yep. But I see that there has been other discussion about VMs. My bias is,
>>of course, to move the top of the bell curve of performance to be squarely
>>on top of J2SE 1.3 since that seems to be the JDK version that is going to
>>be picked up most widely over the next 9 months (since IBM is jumping 
>>right
>>there according to what I hear, and Mac OS is jumping straight to 1.3, 
>>etc.)
>>

I share the same concerns. I think that for the near future
we should make this a requirement to be compatible with JDK 1.1.x.
with the goal to move to move on.

my 2 cents on this issue.


Jeffrey Rodriguez
IBM Silicon Valley


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

RE: REDOM Design discussion.

[Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>]

JDK 1.1.x is a bit more development effort for a transitional period
before it vanishes. 

Then, xerces even takes a bit more to be developed and shows up even
closer to the time that (hopefuly) JDK 1.1.x disapears.

Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:james.davidson@eng.sun.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 07:22
> To: xerces-j-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: REDOM Design discussion.
> 
> 
> on 7/14/00 9:47 AM, Jeffrey Rodriguez at jeffreyr_97@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> > I share the same concerns. I think that for the near future
> > we should make this a requirement to be compatible with JDK 1.1.x.
> > with the goal to move to move on.
> 
> I'm +/-0 on 1.1 compat. I'm +1 that 1.1 parser performance shouldn't be a
> priority.
> 
> .duncan
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-help@xml.apache.org
> 

Re: REDOM Design discussion.

[James Duncan Davidson <ja...@eng.sun.com>]

on 7/14/00 9:47 AM, Jeffrey Rodriguez at jeffreyr_97@hotmail.com wrote:

> I share the same concerns. I think that for the near future
> we should make this a requirement to be compatible with JDK 1.1.x.
> with the goal to move to move on.

I'm +/-0 on 1.1 compat. I'm +1 that 1.1 parser performance shouldn't be a
priority.

.duncan