cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From hepabolu <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Drop JDK1.3 support after 2.1.10 release
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:59:57 GMT

I read only part of the discussion but seeing the reasons to either drop 
the 1.3 compatibility (no resources, too much effort) or keep it 
(versioning requirements), both sides have valuable arguments.

My initial thought was similar to Ralph's only he had better arguments ;-) :

- stop the development of Cocoon 2.1 after the release of 2.1.10

- rename the current branch to Cocoon 2.2 without the 1.3 compatibility 
(and maybe other minor changes that are now prevented by the versioning 

- rename the current trunk to Cocoon 3.0

- rename what is currently mentioned as Cocoon 3.0 to Cocoon 4.0 (or 

This makes the expectations of the various versions far more clear than 
the current versioning.

As a sidenote: I think this also makes it easier to write migration 
paths from 2.1 to 2.2 to 3.0. And I get the feeling that the proposed 
2.2 version is/can be closer to the proposed version 3.0 than in the 
current situation, thus making the migration a little less hard.


Bye, Helma

Ralph Goers said the following on 18/12/06 09:26:
> earlier.  I just took a look at 
> Removing support for JDK 1.3 
> on 2.1.x seems to violate that document as all patch levels should be 
> binary compatible. So it seems the only way to remove support for JDK 
> 1.3 would be to move to a new minor version number.
> Again, it would also seem to me that the current 2.2 also doesn't 
> conform to that document as the change from 2.1 to 2.2 seems to me to 
> something more than minor given how much the core has changed.  A change 
> from 2.1 to 2.2 would imply that nearly all user written components will 
> still work perhaps only requiring a recompile.  While this may or may 
> not be true - I certainly haven't tried - it is certain that how an end 
> user application is integrated with Cocoon has completely changed.  I'm 
> also not sure how many existing sitemaps will require modification.  So 
> I would think trunk should be released as 3.0, if for no other reason 
> than allow the next 2.1 release to be 2.2.0 without jdk 1.3 support.

View raw message