Alex,
Cross posting to dev@geronimo... since Geronimo has been mentioned a few
times in this thread.
AFAIK the statement below that Geronimo's latest development branch will
use JDK 1.5 does not reflect past discussions on the dev@geronimo
thread http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.geronimo.devel/22157 .
Where JEE 5 support will be developed is yet to be decided.
Can you confirm that you are proposing that both Apache DS 1.0, 1.1 &
1.2 will be embeddable in Geronimo on JDK 1.4.2 .
Thanks,
John
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> I was going to write a long email about this but let me condense it.
> (1) JDK 1.4 and up is supported for all user types (including
> embedding users) in 1.0 branch and this will never change. This
> branch is alive and well and will be maintained with bug fixes. There
> already are features in this branch that are 1.5 specific and you can
> get those by adding some extra "components" but must run them on JDK
> 1.5 (SSL is the only JDK 1.5 requirement at this point).
>
> (2) The 1.1 branch is an experimental/feature addition branch. Even
> Geronimo will not look back and will use JDK 1.5 for there latest
> development branch. Does this mean we have to? Not necessarily.
> This branch will most likely add compliance with OpenGroup. It will
> also introduce enhancements for performance in the database, DN
> handling and in the asn1 subsystems. This branch will release often
> hopefully but that does not mean users should use it. The real
> culmination of this branch will be the stable release of 1.2. This
> will take 4-6 months at a minimum. In that time more users will be on
> JDK 1.5 but we will still have most users on 1.4.
>
> (3) A clean break is always better than a half assed job period.
> However we need to get our timing straight. That's all this JDK
> discussion is really about. So we have to pick just when we make this
> jump.
>
> So now here's my opinion:
>
> (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.
>
> (b) ApacheDS sticks to 1.4 support in the 1.1 and 1.2 branches. For
> 1.5 needs it juggles new components and leverages OSGi to help manage
> this. SASL, SSL, Crypto libs and other features that may need 1.5 can
> load 1.5 specific bundles to do this. This sucks and is going to be a
> pita for us the developers but we can do it and we have OSGi to help.
> At this point 1.0 dies and 1.2 becomes the main supported branch.
> (c) Once MINA graduates and starts work on a pure JDK 1.5+ branch we
> can start a new experimental branch for ApacheDS, branch 1.5 skipping
> 1.3 altogether. Here we redesign the server to use all 1.5 features.
> The design/architecture and readability, maintainability greatly
> improves. We then bump up the GA release branch to 2.0. This is a
> year out in the making. Plus it will coincide with mina 1.1 or
> whatever we choose it to be designated as for jdk 1.5 support. At
> this point we can decide to kill 1.2 or to keep on supporting bug
> fixes in it for 6 more months (recommended) until SUN puts an EOL on
> jdk 1.4.
>
>
> Summary
> =======
>
> (1) Users are happy, embedding and standalone users
> (2) Developers deal with the burden but use OSGi to alleviate the pain
> (3) We have a clean manageable break which will make life bearable
> (4) MINA progresses forward with 1.0 and 1.1 jdk 5 support with a nice
> clean break and gets a new home as it should
> (5) ApacheDS 1.2 will pretty much have the same functionality as 2.0
> so there will be little complains. The server will just be redesigned
> to make it easier for developers. There is only so much you can do
> with LDAP, DNS and Kerberos.
>
> DHCP is another story but we can talk later about this one.
>
> Heh we can deal later with these headaches 1.6 will bring a year from
> now.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
> P.S. Can we agree on this and forge ahead please?
>
>
>
|