You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to j-users@xalan.apache.org by an...@escalate.com on 2002/02/07 00:48:12 UTC
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 suppor
t?
I don't see any problem to drop JDK 1.1, right now
the only supported version of JDK is JDK 1.3.1_02.
And, it is very common for clients to install multiple
versions of JDK on their system. If they are brave
enough to try any version of Xalan, they will should
be very comfortable with JDK 1.3 or 1.4.
Andrew Duan
Escalate, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris McCabe [mailto:Chris_McCabe@choicehotels.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:37 PM
> To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org
> Cc: xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
> support?
>
>
...
>
> Here is the list as far as I know:
> Pro - Developers can use JDK1.2 and stop worrying about 1.1
> Con - Some clients will be forced to stay at older revision
>
> Is that all?
>
> Chris
>
> Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> >A couple of notes:
> >
> >-1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
> >(within a week-ish) -sc
> >
> >+1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at this point
> >we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
> >
> >This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan
> committers and call
> >for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear
> clear comments
> >(and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you should assume
> >we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
> >
> >- Shane
> >(P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8
> compilation last
> >week... 8-)
> >
> >---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
> >
> >>I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
> >>
> >even
> >
> >>Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year or so ago,
> >>
> >some
> >
> >>of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
> >>
> >upgrade.
> >
> >>I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue, and whether
> >>
> >Xalan
> >
> >>wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
> >>
> >Sticking
> >
> >>with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
> >>
> >hasn't
> >
> >>been firmly established yet.
> >>So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
> >>
> >
> >=====
> ><eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
> > "http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> >http://greetings.yahoo.com
> >
>
> --
> Chris P. McCabe - Senior Software Systems Architect
> Choice Hotels International - Information Technology
> chris_mccabe@choicehotels.com 602-953-4416
>
>
>
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
support?
Posted by Brad Cox <bc...@virtualschool.edu>.
At 7:40 PM -0800 2/6/02, Gary L Peskin wrote:
>VAJ is pretty much a dead dog. I suggest that you upgrade to Eclipse
>(http://www.eclipse.org) w
Thanks! I'm downloading it now.
--
Brad Cox, Ph.D.; bcox@virtualschool.edu 703 361 4751
For industrial age goods there were checks and credit cards.
For everything else there is http://virtualschool.edu/mybank
Java Web Application Architecture: http://virtualschool.edu/jwaa
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Gary L Peskin <ga...@firstech.com>.
Brad --
VAJ is pretty much a dead dog. I suggest that you upgrade to Eclipse
(http://www.eclipse.org) which is the follow-on product to VAJ. It is
free. As a VAJ user, I think that you'll find a very fast learning
curve. It is written almost entirely in Java and it is open source.
There is a RedHat Linux version on the download page.
Eclipse itself doesn't include some of the enterprise features of VAJ.
For that, you'll need WSAD, a set of plugins to Eclipse, which is
pricey. For straight java development, you don't need WSAD but it has
handy features for designing html/jsp pages, .war files, .ear files,
etc.
A free sixty day trial version is available at
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/webservers/studio/preregister.html#wsadlp.
Eclipse can use any standard JDK and does not use a proprietary JDK like
VAJ depended on. This was a major limitation of VAJ and I'm glad that
it's been done away with in Eclipse.
So (he says, working his way back to a Xalan-related topic), I don't
really see the limitations of VAJ weighing in heavily in this
discussion, IMHO.
HTH,
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Cox [mailto:bcox@virtualschool.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 6:57 PM
> To: Gary L Peskin; xalan-dev@xml.apache.org;
> xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require
> Java 1.1 support?
>
>
> At 6:40 PM -0800 2/6/02, Gary L Peskin wrote:
> >So, for those of you who are limited to JDK 1.1.8, please
> speak out now
> >so that you can be counted. I've already counted Elliotte Rusty
> >Harold.
>
> Linux users of Visual Age for Java are stuck at 1.1.8 indefinitely. I
> rarely use it anymore because of this, but just happened to be using
> it at the moment to debug a particularly knotty piece of code.
>
> IBM reneged on their promise to upgrade the linux edition last Jan
> EVEN FOR THEIR PAYING CUSTOMERS. So much for IBM's linux "support".
> --
>
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Gary L Peskin <ga...@firstech.com>.
Brad --
VAJ is pretty much a dead dog. I suggest that you upgrade to Eclipse
(http://www.eclipse.org) which is the follow-on product to VAJ. It is
free. As a VAJ user, I think that you'll find a very fast learning
curve. It is written almost entirely in Java and it is open source.
There is a RedHat Linux version on the download page.
Eclipse itself doesn't include some of the enterprise features of VAJ.
For that, you'll need WSAD, a set of plugins to Eclipse, which is
pricey. For straight java development, you don't need WSAD but it has
handy features for designing html/jsp pages, .war files, .ear files,
etc.
A free sixty day trial version is available at
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/webservers/studio/preregister.html#wsadlp.
Eclipse can use any standard JDK and does not use a proprietary JDK like
VAJ depended on. This was a major limitation of VAJ and I'm glad that
it's been done away with in Eclipse.
So (he says, working his way back to a Xalan-related topic), I don't
really see the limitations of VAJ weighing in heavily in this
discussion, IMHO.
HTH,
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Cox [mailto:bcox@virtualschool.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 6:57 PM
> To: Gary L Peskin; xalan-dev@xml.apache.org;
> xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require
> Java 1.1 support?
>
>
> At 6:40 PM -0800 2/6/02, Gary L Peskin wrote:
> >So, for those of you who are limited to JDK 1.1.8, please
> speak out now
> >so that you can be counted. I've already counted Elliotte Rusty
> >Harold.
>
> Linux users of Visual Age for Java are stuck at 1.1.8 indefinitely. I
> rarely use it anymore because of this, but just happened to be using
> it at the moment to debug a particularly knotty piece of code.
>
> IBM reneged on their promise to upgrade the linux edition last Jan
> EVEN FOR THEIR PAYING CUSTOMERS. So much for IBM's linux "support".
> --
>
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
support?
Posted by Brad Cox <bc...@virtualschool.edu>.
At 6:40 PM -0800 2/6/02, Gary L Peskin wrote:
>So, for those of you who are limited to JDK 1.1.8, please speak out now
>so that you can be counted. I've already counted Elliotte Rusty Harold.
Linux users of Visual Age for Java are stuck at 1.1.8 indefinitely. I
rarely use it anymore because of this, but just happened to be using
it at the moment to debug a particularly knotty piece of code.
IBM reneged on their promise to upgrade the linux edition last Jan
EVEN FOR THEIR PAYING CUSTOMERS. So much for IBM's linux "support".
--
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Gary L Peskin <ga...@firstech.com>.
Andrew --
That may be the only supported version from Sun but I am sympathetic to
Mac users on Mac OS 9 for whom JDK 1.1.8 is still supported and who
don't have the choice to upgrade JDKs and stay on that OS.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough interest in the older Mac
operating systems to convince Apple devote resources towards porting JDK
1.3 back to them. Also, it doesn't seem like any third parties would
like to create a JDK for the older Macs. So, for Mac OS 9 users, they
are stuck.
I think a large part of what XalanJ should do depends on the magnitude
of this problem. If we have, say, two users who can't upgrade to Java
2, it doesn't seem like we should limit everyone else to the lowest
common denominator. On the other hand, if this affects a large portion
of the community, that is a different story. Remember, per Shane's -1,
release 2.3 would still run on 1.1.8. That release is fully compliant
with XSLT 1.0 and implements all of its features. So, if you have an
old computer, running an old operating system, you'll eventually be
limited to running old software. Just like you won't be able to run any
of the Mac OS X only applications that are coming out.
So, for those of you who are limited to JDK 1.1.8, please speak out now
so that you can be counted. I've already counted Elliotte Rusty Harold.
Elliotte --
When do you think that MacOS 9 will no longer be a common option among
those Mac users interested in a Java-based XSLT Processor? Six months,
two years?
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: andrew.duan@escalate.com [mailto:andrew.duan@escalate.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:48 PM
> To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org
> Cc: xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require
> Java 1.1 support?
>
>
> I don't see any problem to drop JDK 1.1, right now
> the only supported version of JDK is JDK 1.3.1_02.
>
> And, it is very common for clients to install multiple
> versions of JDK on their system. If they are brave
> enough to try any version of Xalan, they will should
> be very comfortable with JDK 1.3 or 1.4.
>
> Andrew Duan
> Escalate, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris McCabe [mailto:Chris_McCabe@choicehotels.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Cc: xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
> > support?
> >
> >
> ...
> >
> > Here is the list as far as I know:
> > Pro - Developers can use JDK1.2 and stop worrying about 1.1
> Con - Some
> > clients will be forced to stay at older revision
> >
> > Is that all?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >
> > >A couple of notes:
> > >
> > >-1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
> > >(within a week-ish) -sc
> > >
> > >+1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at
> this point
> > >we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
> > >
> > >This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan
> > committers and call
> > >for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear
> > clear comments
> > >(and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you
> should assume
> > >we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
> > >
> > >- Shane
> > >(P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8
> > compilation last
> > >week... 8-)
> > >
> > >---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
> > >
> > >>I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
> > >>
> > >even
> > >
> > >>Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year
> or so ago,
> > >>
> > >some
> > >
> > >>of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
> > >>
> > >upgrade.
> > >
> > >>I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue,
> and whether
> > >>
> > >Xalan
> > >
> > >>wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
> > >>
> > >Sticking
> > >
> > >>with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
> > >>
> > >hasn't
> > >
> > >>been firmly established yet.
> > >>So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
> > >>
> > >
> > >=====
> > ><eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
> > > "http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
> > >
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >Do You Yahoo!?
> > >Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> > >http://greetings.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Chris P. McCabe - Senior Software Systems Architect
> > Choice Hotels International - Information Technology
> > chris_mccabe@choicehotels.com 602-953-4416
> >
> >
> >
>
RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1 support?
Posted by Gary L Peskin <ga...@firstech.com>.
Andrew --
That may be the only supported version from Sun but I am sympathetic to
Mac users on Mac OS 9 for whom JDK 1.1.8 is still supported and who
don't have the choice to upgrade JDKs and stay on that OS.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough interest in the older Mac
operating systems to convince Apple devote resources towards porting JDK
1.3 back to them. Also, it doesn't seem like any third parties would
like to create a JDK for the older Macs. So, for Mac OS 9 users, they
are stuck.
I think a large part of what XalanJ should do depends on the magnitude
of this problem. If we have, say, two users who can't upgrade to Java
2, it doesn't seem like we should limit everyone else to the lowest
common denominator. On the other hand, if this affects a large portion
of the community, that is a different story. Remember, per Shane's -1,
release 2.3 would still run on 1.1.8. That release is fully compliant
with XSLT 1.0 and implements all of its features. So, if you have an
old computer, running an old operating system, you'll eventually be
limited to running old software. Just like you won't be able to run any
of the Mac OS X only applications that are coming out.
So, for those of you who are limited to JDK 1.1.8, please speak out now
so that you can be counted. I've already counted Elliotte Rusty Harold.
Elliotte --
When do you think that MacOS 9 will no longer be a common option among
those Mac users interested in a Java-based XSLT Processor? Six months,
two years?
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: andrew.duan@escalate.com [mailto:andrew.duan@escalate.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:48 PM
> To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org
> Cc: xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Second call: Does anyone still really require
> Java 1.1 support?
>
>
> I don't see any problem to drop JDK 1.1, right now
> the only supported version of JDK is JDK 1.3.1_02.
>
> And, it is very common for clients to install multiple
> versions of JDK on their system. If they are brave
> enough to try any version of Xalan, they will should
> be very comfortable with JDK 1.3 or 1.4.
>
> Andrew Duan
> Escalate, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris McCabe [mailto:Chris_McCabe@choicehotels.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Cc: xalan-j-users@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Second call: Does anyone still really require Java 1.1
> > support?
> >
> >
> ...
> >
> > Here is the list as far as I know:
> > Pro - Developers can use JDK1.2 and stop worrying about 1.1
> Con - Some
> > clients will be forced to stay at older revision
> >
> > Is that all?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >
> > >A couple of notes:
> > >
> > >-1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support before our official 2.3 release
> > >(within a week-ish) -sc
> > >
> > >+1 to dropping JDK 1.1.8 support after our 2.3 release; at
> this point
> > >we would require a minium of JDK 1.2.2 to compile & run Xalan. -sc
> > >
> > >This is essentially a call for a vote by the Xalan
> > committers and call
> > >for comments from the Xalan community. If we don't hear
> > clear comments
> > >(and have volunteers to help) about changing this, you
> should assume
> > >we'll make this change in the next few weeks.
> > >
> > >- Shane
> > >(P.S. sorry Gary et al for dropping the ball on 1.1.8
> > compilation last
> > >week... 8-)
> > >
> > >---- you joseph_kesselman@us.ibm.com wrote ----
> > >
> > >>I know _we've_ all upgraded (except for folks running MSVJ+, whom
> > >>
> > >even
> > >
> > >>Microsoft has abandoned)... but when we asked this a year
> or so ago,
> > >>
> > >some
> > >
> > >>of you said you had customers who were absolutely unwilling to
> > >>
> > >upgrade.
> > >
> > >>I think it's time to ask whether that's still an issue,
> and whether
> > >>
> > >Xalan
> > >
> > >>wants to continue to cater to (and be limited by) that audience.
> > >>
> > >Sticking
> > >
> > >>with the older classes may be costing us performance, though that
> > >>
> > >hasn't
> > >
> > >>been firmly established yet.
> > >>So: If we cut over, how loud will the explosion be?
> > >>
> > >
> > >=====
> > ><eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com"
> > > "http://www.otnemem.com/"=.sig />
> > >
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >Do You Yahoo!?
> > >Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> > >http://greetings.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Chris P. McCabe - Senior Software Systems Architect
> > Choice Hotels International - Information Technology
> > chris_mccabe@choicehotels.com 602-953-4416
> >
> >
> >
>