ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gus Heck <gus-ant...@cognition.olin.edu>
Subject Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
Date Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:53:23 GMT
Steve Loughran wrote:

>> I don't see reasons to try to back-port fixes made on 1.6 to the 1.5. 
>> Only
>> bugs identified by people running JDK 1.1 should make it to the 1.5 
>> branch.
>> This should be the only activity going on in that 1.5 branch.
> 
> 
> to date we are putting fixes to the 1.5 branch into 1.5.x, both minor 
> and major, the zip work being the biggest. If any of that work had been 
> in Java1.2 style, we couldnt have back ported it. Some of the changes (I 
> think of the weak reference stuff) did have extra work to get into 1.1 
> compliance, incidentally.
> 
> Once 1.6 ships, then we can stop doing any work to the 1.5.x branch, so 
> this issue of having to back port code into a java1.1. compatible branch 
>  goes away. Except for people who want to maintain 1.1 support, and they 
> get to do the work themselves.
> 

So we should wait till after the release to refactor our code?

>>
>> Given the above, there are no reasons to limit the 1.6 code base from 
>> *any*
>> change that's JDK 1.2 (Java 2) compatible. That includes moving 
>> everything
>> to the Java 2 Collections.
> 
> 
> I dont see the java2 collections as the compelling reason for this. They 
> are nice, I use them, but it is really things like classloader, security 
> manager, weak references and other major system changes that are forcing 
> the move.
> 

I also see the reflection tests for existance of 1.2 methods as adding 
substantial clutter to the code. I think removing these is quite 
valuable to people trying to understand the flow of our code. I think 
these should be eliminated at a rate greater than slowly but surely :).

>>
>> As I said before, 1.5.x is a damn good release (once 1.5.3 is out), and
>> should more than satisfy JDK 1.1 users (wherever they're hiding). The 
>> buck
>> has to stop somewhere, and from the votes, it's clear 1.6 should 
>> depend on
>> JDK 1.2. This should not prevent though JDK 1.2 to be fully used 
>> everywhere
>> it's possible.
>>
>> Steve and Costin might as well -1 the move to JDK 1.2 with this kind of
>> thinking. --DD
> 
> 
> I'm very happy with the move. I just don't think we should use this as 
> an excuse to go s/Hashtable/HashMap/ s/Vector/ArrayList/ through all the 

I would agree that this type of conversion is of limmited value. It 
should probably happen, but it would be low on the priorety list I 
think. Use of Iterator rather than enumeration might be of some value, 
again from the standpoint of code clarity.

> old code, of which there is a frighteningly large amount, just for the 
> sake of it. I know this is at odds with 'refactor mercilessly', but as 
> Conor's test coverage data shows, we dont have the test coverage to 
> refactor mercilessly :(
> 

Perhaps, rather than saying don't refactor until 1.7, (or will it be 
2.1?) we should say if you want to refactor it, and it doesn't have a 
test case write the testcases before refactoring it?



Mime
View raw message