Re: Ant 2 -> Java 1.2

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

At 03:27  9/12/00 -0500, Chris Todd wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
>>Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 3:06 PM
>>To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: cvs
>>commit:jakarta-ant/proposal/anteater/source/main/org/apache/ant
>>TaskManager.javaAnt.java TaskClassLoader.java
>
><snip>
>
>>4) For the people who are still confused and just don't get it, this is the
>>*build environment* that would have the JDK 1.2 requirement. It doesn't
>>matter if your code execution still has a JDK 1.1 requirement because you
>>can still use Ant to compile your 1.1 code.
>
>Jon-
>
>I wasn't confused, and I don't think too many people were.  Being able to
>build 1.1 code using an Ant that itself only runs in a 1.2 VM doesn't matter
>to folks who develop and build their code on systems for which JDK1.2 is
>unavailable.  

What environment would that be? I don't know of any environment that
doesn't have reasonable 1.2 support. Hell - excepting *BSD, I don't know of
any developers environment that has a 1.2 but doesn't have a reasonable 1.3.

>You would essentially be telling those folks they can't use
>Ant in their development environment, they will have to go find some other
>system that has a 1.2 VM available for doing their builds.  

nope - you will always have ant 1.*

>I don't know how
>many systems only have 1.1 VMs available, but I would rather see Ant be
>inclusive rather than exclusive.  Just my 2 cents as a devoted Ant user.

inclusive is good ... when it is not limiting. If I had to choose between
keeping 100% of current user base or developing a better product (and thus
more likely gain more more users) you know which choice I would make ? ;P
If you *reall* want 1.1 then you always have 1.*

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*

Re: Ant 2 -> Java 1.2

["Simeon H.K. Fitch" <si...@fitch.net>]

Peter Donald wrote:

> What environment would that be? I don't know of any environment that
> doesn't have reasonable 1.2 support. 

HPUX 10.20. HP *will not* port Java 1.2 to that platform due to a broken
threading model (my uninformed analysis). You'd be surprised how many
people are stuck there and won't upgrade due the involved costs and
political issues (two of my customers are in this situation).

I just wanted to drop in this data point. Personally, I'm in the camp
that post Ant 1.3 we should make full use of Java 1.2 features and
require that platform as a minimum. I think Ant 1.3 would be perfectly
sufficient for people standed on the Java 1.1.x platform, myself being
one of them.

sim

Re: Ant 2 -> Java 1.2

[Russell Gold <ru...@acm.org>]

At 5:27 PM -0500 12/9/00, Peter Donald wrote:
>At 03:27  9/12/00 -0500, Chris Todd wrote:
>>I wasn't confused, and I don't think too many people were.  Being able to
>>build 1.1 code using an Ant that itself only runs in a 1.2 VM doesn't matter
>>to folks who develop and build their code on systems for which JDK1.2 is
>>unavailable.  
>
>What environment would that be? I don't know of any environment that
>doesn't have reasonable 1.2 support. Hell - excepting *BSD, I don't know of
>any developers environment that has a 1.2 but doesn't have a reasonable 1.3.

MacOS 9 has no possibility of Java 2 support, although OS X will.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Gold                     | "... society is tradition and order
russgold@acm.org    (preferred)  | and reverence, not a series of cheap
russgold@netaxs.com              | bargains between selfish interests."
rgold@thesycamoregroup.com       |   - Poul Anderson, "Iron"