directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: Shall we go JDK 1.5 in 1.1 branch
Date Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:32:10 GMT
Trustin Lee wrote:
>
>
> On 3/11/06, *peter royal* <proyal@apache.org 
> <mailto:proyal@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Mar 10, 2006, at 6:18 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
>
>>     On 3/11/06, *Alex Karasulu * <aok123@bellsouth.net
>>     <mailto:aok123@bellsouth.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         (a) MINA sticks to 1.4 support without messing with byte code and
>>         experiments with retroweaver.  She should release a 1.0 and
>>         have a solid
>>         stable API for 1.4 and 1.5 support.  At this point I'd like
>>         to see mina
>>         graduate incubation and start a new branch 1.1 which focuses
>>         on JDK1.5
>>         with mina 1.0 as 1.4 fall back.  This can occur in about 4-6
>>         months IMHO.
>>
>>
>>     If MINA is released with 1.4 and 1.5 support not using
>>     retrotranslator, we have to maintain two branches for one
>>     release.  Do you mean it?  I have done it before with other
>>     projects and it was a real overhead.
>
>     I think Alex means that Mina 1.0 wouldn't use any 1.5-specific
>     features.
>
>
> If so, it's fine. :)
>
>>     BTW it is very strange that nobody responses to my messages about
>>     retrotranslator (not retroweaver).  I want to listen to any
>>     reason behind all other people's opinions with respect to my opinion.
>
>     I'm fine with retrotranslater, but only because I wouldn't be
>     using it in any production systems :) I totally understand the
>     concerns of people about using bytecode modification in production
>     systems.
>
>
> I think it doesn't have much difference from AOP or runtime bytecode 
> generation which is used by modern frameworks such as Hibernate and 
> Springframework.  So I guess it is just because we didn't experience 
> retrotranslator enough.  Considering its internal translation 
> mechanism, it is almost 1-to-1 translation via a translation 
> dictionary, which should be quite safe.
Trustin I'm really uneasy with anything that manipulates byte code or 
source code auto-magically.  It think making a clean split somewhere is 
much easier than wondering WTF happened when crazy things start 
happening.  Ruling out the retro-xxx facility gives me a level of 
confidence that I screwed something up and should keep searching for 
something in my code.

Why the push to 1.5 now with retro-xxx can't we release a MINA 1.0 
without 1.5?

Alex


Mime
View raw message