ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com>
Subject Re: JDK 1.1 support
Date Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:22:02 GMT
At 03:28 PM 3/13/2003, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
>
>1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented

+1


>2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to
>later versions?)

I don't know the stats on which JDKs are still in use, so it is a little 
hard to talk sensibly about this. We don't know how much pain we are 
inflicting on people by insisting they upgrade in order to use the latest 
Ant. But here are my suspicions:

JDK 1.4 - This is wildly different from 1.3, so people are being cautious 
about upgrading to it. We would leave many people in the dust if we adopted 
this one as the standard.

JDK 1.3 - Since this is so similar to 1.2, I think most people have moved 
to it already. But there will still be a significant number of people who 
haven't bothered upgrading yet.

JDK 1.2 -  I would guess that there are still a number of people, 
particularly those running older software that don't want to pay for 
upgrades, who are still using this JDK.

JDK 1.1 - apart from people running applets in IE, I doubt that this is 
much in use any more. We lose the large installed base from Windows, but 
that has never really been our "market" anyway.

Those are the costs of each. Then there are the benefits. Clearly going to 
JDK 1.2 is such a win over JDK 1.1 that doing so is a no brainer. JDK 1.4 
would also give us much more functionality. JDK 1.3 over JDK 1.2, however, 
doesn't seem to do much for us.

So in considering moving up from each previous JDK, we have:

           Cost      Benefit
JDK 1.2   Low       High
JDK 1.3   Medium    Low
JDK 1.4   High      High

So going to JDK 1.2 is a good tradeoff, JDK 1.3 not such a good one, and 
JDK 1.4 is too expensive. I'd say stick with JDK 1.2.


>3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system
>requirements)

Absolutely.


>4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website.

Just the website? What about the cruft in the code?

I had thought that there was general agreement that once we went to Ant 2, 
we could finally drop some of the code kept in there for hysterical 
raisins. We could break some of the assumptions of custom task writers, 
provided the impact was minimal and well justified. And we could get rid of 
deprecated methods, classes, and tasks.



Mime
View raw message