harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [general] longer term roadmap
Date Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:18:51 GMT


Paulex Yang wrote:
> 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...

If Sun ships a Java 5.1

a) I'll be really surprised

b) I will get over it and not care.

Sun ships an implementation of the spec.  Yes, it's the RI, but the 
version of their implementation is meaningful *to them*, because it 
reflects things like bug fixes in their implementation, performance 
improvements, etc.

IOW, comparing Harmony vX.Y.Z and Sun vX.Y.Z is meaningless, and there's 
no way we can ever provide meaning.

However, if you are worried about that. I'm happy with

   <main_spec_ver>.<minor_spec_ver>.<impl_patchlevel>

with minor_spec_ver being 0 always :)


> 
> 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?

Why do you consider it a spec version?  There have been 7 updates to 
Sun's release of Java 5 : 1.5.0_01 through 1.5.0_08 and 2 updates to the 
java SE 5 spec.  Clearly the updates to the binary are not spec updates, 
but implementation updates.

How does IBM name their JRE releases?

geir

Mime
View raw message