geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From chi runhua <chirun...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] change 2.2 branch build JDK from 6 to 5
Date Fri, 18 Jun 2010 03:18:46 GMT
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Shawn Jiang <genspring@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right, stay with SE 5.   But document that there might be some potential
> issue(e.g. webservice problems caused by SE 6 bundled saaj and jaxb) when
> working with SE 6.
>
> So far, we have document for G2.2 at [1] as below:

Geronimo v2.2 can be built on Java SE 6 and provide support to JAXB/JAX-WS
version2 implementation, and its assemblies also supports Java 5 and 6
run-time environments.

Plan to update as:

Geronimo v2.2 can be built on Java SE 6 and provide support to JAXB/JAX-WS
version2 implementation, and its assemblies also supports Java 5 and 6
run-time environments.  Note that server assemblies are built based on Java
5 SDK by default, there will be some potential issues with web services
features especially when using SAAJ and JAXB components at Java 6 run-time
environment.

Any comments?

[1].
https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/new-features-and-enhancements.html#Newfeaturesandenhancements-JavaSE6support

Jeff



>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> OK, just found GERONIMO-5369 and it turns out not to be an issue, so
>> lets stay with SE 5 for 2.2.
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> On 6/17/10 12:26 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> >
>> > On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/17/2010 11:20 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>> >>> I'd be fine with requiring Java SE 6 for 2.2.1 and follow-on releases.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Is that even allowed by the Java EE 5 certification rules?
>> >
>> > Yes, but I don't think it really matters. I don't think we have any real
>> motivation to move to Java 6 -- there aren't Java 6 features that we're
>> planning on taking advantage of... It's simply someone "built" on Java 6 and
>> found that they had problems subsequently "running" on Java 5.
>> >
>> > IMO, we should be building on Java 5 (maintaining support for Java 5),
>> if users want to run on Java 6, that's fine...
>> >
>> > --kevan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Shawn
>

Mime
View raw message