geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Apache DS] Shall we go JDK 1.5 in 1.1 branch
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:17:29 GMT
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> John Sisson wrote:
>> 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 .
> Hiya John,
>
> Yes you are right.  Both stable (GA) releases of ApacheDS, 1.0 and 
> 1.2, will be JDK 1.4 compatible.  A jump to JDK 5 is probably a year 
> out.  In any case, we will make sure we provide 1.4 JDK compatibility 
> with a living GA branch for Geronimo and JetSpeed.  A JDK 5 minimum 
> requirement would appear with a 2.0 release of ApacheDS.  Apache 2.0 
> will not necessarily kill the latest 1.x branch.
>
> Note that 1.0 is not even released yet.  So in other words, I would 
> not worry too much :).  We still have much work to do.  However I did 
> make a mistake thinking Geronimo's JEE 5 support was going to be J2SE 
> 5.0 based.  My bad.
You didn't make a mistake.. Geronimo JEE 5 support (probably in Geronimo 
2.0) will be J2SE 5.0 based (it has to be to be JEE 5 certified).  I was 
trying to make it clear that at the moment neither Geronimo's trunk or 
branches are J2SE 5.0 based, but that will probably change in the near 
future when JEE 5 work gathers pace.  Currently we have been mostly 
focused on getting Geronimo 1.1 (J2EE 1.4) ready.

Thanks,

John
>
> Please excuse the confusion,
> Alex
>
>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message