harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paulex Yang <paulex.y...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Date Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:32:05 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Paulex Yang wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>>> I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
>>>>> releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
>>>> I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun 
>>>> didn't have 5.1?
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> There is a version of the spec, and a version of the implementation, 
>>> which are different.
>> If so, I prefer to Harmony 1.0(SE 5.0 compatible), 1.1(SE 5.0 
>> compatible with performance enhancement) just like what Geronmo does, 
>> rather than 5.0, 5.1, which is confusing.
>
> I think we should consider 5.0, 5.1 simply for marketing reasons and 
> clarity.
>
> If I tell you that I'm running my program under "Harmony 5.1.2", you 
> know exactly what spec version of Java I'm using, so you don't have to 
> do the math to figure it out.  Yeah, it's easy for 5, but once we have 
> 7, that will have things like "Harmony 3.2.1" ?
>
> I think it might make it easier for users.
But what if Sun ships Java SE 5.1 someday? if Harmony already has 5.1.2 
which actually is Java SE 5.0 compatible, what should we do? It may be 
not likely of Java 5, but possible for Java 6, 7...

My point is: this is confusing, either we keep the Java SE spec version 
intact like 5.0_12, or we use totally different version number, like 
Geronimo, 1.0->J2EE 1.4.  I cannot see why Harmony 5.1.2 is more clear 
than Harmony 5.0_12?
>
> geir
>


-- 
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM



Mime
View raw message