geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay D. McHugh" <...@jnwd.net>
Subject Re: [YOKO]
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:18:51 GMT
Hi Lars,

Just a note about JDK versions.  Since Geronimo 2.x is targeted at JEE5, 
1.5 is actually a requirement now.

By the way - Welcome to Geronimo.

Jay

Lars K├╝hne wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 8:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> What cleanup steps need to be taken with the yoko code now that it's
>>> been made a subproject in Geronimo?  The first obvious one would be
>>> to remove the non-core components from the trunk.  The second would
>>> be to remove the "incubating" from the version names.
>> Agreed
> 
> +1
> 
> Is JDK 1.4 still a given or has geronimo upgraded it's JDK dependency
> to 1.5 since yoko entered the incubator? We shouldn't change the
> required JDK in a point release, so this seems like a good time to
> revisit this decision.
> 
>>> The current code was never made into an official Yoko release.
>>> Should we attempt to get this out as an official v1 release as soon
>>> as the basic cleanup is completed?
>> I think that some people had some concerns about a release but I think
>> that they were more focused on proper documentation and releasing a
>> well rounded product.
> 
> That was me. My concern wasn't so much about user docs but developer
> level documentation, see the "Answer this question..." yoko issues in
> jira. Those questions mostly about being able to attract new
> developers.
> 
>>  It's my opinion that it's ok to release so long
>> as the code is good enough.  With that said, I would like to make a
>> 1.0 release.
> 
> Yes, the code could use some cleanup but it does pass certification
> and we can always improve things later, in another release.
> 
> This of course assumes that we don't have to pay too much attention to
> backward compatibility. Does each follow-up version have to be a
> drop-in replacement of the first 1.0 release? Or is it OK to change
> ORB properties and such, as long as the changes are documented in the
> release notes (which is what I hope, but I don't know the requirements
> of Geronimo and Harmony)?
> 
> Regards,
> Lars
> 
> 



Mime
View raw message