Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cayenne-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 41421 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2011 10:05:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Jan 2011 10:05:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 21540 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2011 10:05:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cayenne-dev-archive@cayenne.apache.org Received: (qmail 21432 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2011 10:05:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cayenne.apache.org Received: (qmail 21424 invoked by uid 99); 30 Jan 2011 10:05:32 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:05:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.78.103.231] (HELO vorsha.objectstyle.org) (208.78.103.231) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:05:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 13236 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2011 10:05:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?IPv6:::1?) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jan 2011 10:05:03 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: Java 6 for 3.1? From: Andrus Adamchik In-Reply-To: <4D43472B.5040905@maniatis.org> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 05:05:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <90C02E3D-0D50-4A18-A904-01899729879B@objectstyle.org> References: <1B874967-0625-4112-B866-2A13E8B7BC49@objectstyle.org> <4D43472B.5040905@maniatis.org> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I guess we bag the upgrade for now then. At least the next time we = discuss it, we will already know that there are no objections, except = for this specific edge case of PPC and early 32-bit Intel Macs (I = actually have one from the later category, used by my company QA).=20 (Wonder if there is a 32-bit version of OpenJDK 7?) Andrus On Jan 28, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: > On 29/01/11 12:36 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: >> Since Java 5 has been EOL'd for some time, and Java 7 seems to be = close to GA, (and there's no more Java 5 on OS X, so I've no idea = whether Cayenne is really java 5 compatible :-)), how about we make Java = 6 a minimal JVM requirement for Cayenne 3.1? Keeping things tight and = all that. >=20 > -1 for personal reasons... I use Cayenne in a product which is = deployed to 1.5 and cannot be upgraded since it runs on PPC Macs. I was = really hoping to upgrade to 3.1 quite soon in that product. >=20 > But also, we have no idea how many people are using Cayenne in = enterprise situations where they don't get to control the JVM. Last time = we moved from 1.4 to 1.5 there was a good reason: generics. This time = around, there is nothing really to be gained and we immediately remove = any PPC Macs from the userbase. >=20 > If anyone is using Cayenne, not for a big web application server in a = data centre, but out in the field on a 10 year old desktop or (who = knows) porting it to Android (Dalvik is a 'copy' of Java 5) for some new = tablet application, they may well be targeting Java 5. Personally I = still have a couple of PPC machines in the office and they are only 4 = years old. Many of my customers have refresh cycles much longer than 4 = years, especially in the education industry. >=20 > Oh, there is no problem with Cayenne in Java 5: = https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Cayenne-trunk/ >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Ari >=20 >=20 > --=20 > --------------------------> > Aristedes Maniatis > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A >=20