Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20060309191916.03e180b0@mail.qos.ch>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:24:01 +0100
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
From: Ceki =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FClc=FC?= <listid@qos.ch>
Subject: Re: Shall we go JDK 1.5 in 1.1 branch
In-Reply-To: <768dcb2e0603071528u2c9c895csad3f410e7b0d2391@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <440DA670.5050801@apache.org>
 <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPKEHIGOAC.noel@devtech.com>
 <768dcb2e0603071528u2c9c895csad3f410e7b0d2391@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


I tried to summarize some of the arguments given here in my blog (see=20
below). In a nutshell, aiming for JDK 1.4 compatibility using JDK 1.5=20
language features is likely to be messy, especially if you accept patches=20
from "outside" developers. On the other hand, who would blame you to want=20
to switch to JDK 1.5 when JDK 1.6 is in the offing?

Cheers,

At 12:28 AM 3/8/2006, Trustin Lee wrote:
>I agree with you all ApacheDS and MINA users should be able to use them on=
=20
>JDK 1.4.  My idea is to enable backward compatibility using bytecode=20
>manipulator which is a reasonable solution so the requirement remains the=
=20
>same and we can use advanced language features like generics and covariant=
=20
>return types yet.  These language features help us to program more=20
>effectively and users to use cleaner API if they use the API on Java=20
>5.  We'll also have to be careful not to expose unsafe collections and=20
>APIs without backward compatibility where user and our software interacts,=
=20
>but it's just another matter.
>
>Trustin
>--

--=20
Ceki G=FClc=FC
http://ceki.blogspot.com/