geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <rick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [YOKO]
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:03:11 GMT
The Yoko ORB code still generates 1.4 compatible code.  Since the ORB 
doesn't have any direct dependencies on Geronimo, it probably can be 
maintained as just being dependent on 1.4.  On the other hand, there are 
many times I wished I could use some of the stuff in 1.5 (such as the 
concurrency classes).  Harmony is a 1.5 JDK, so 1.4 compatibility is not 
an issue for them.  Yoko is used in the never released 1.2 Geronimo 
version too.  I suspect that's going to remain in its never released 
state so I don't think Geronimo is an issue either. 

I can go either way on the JDK issue depending on what the consensus is.

Rick

Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> 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