river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Brouwer <mark.brou...@cheiron.org>
Subject Re: a potential "AR1" release
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:27:40 GMT
Hi John, Dan,

John Sarman wrote:
>> Dan Creswell wrote:
> 
>> That's been discussed over on Jini-Users a few times don't think there's
>> an agreed view (be worth checking through the archives).  I also think

When you check the jini-user and even river-dev mailing list you won't
find an agreed view. And I guess that is rather logical given the fact
the answer is very much subject to the abundance of a particular JVM
level people experience in their own controlled environment and/or
installed base at customer site for those who embed Jini in their products.

>> this is probably to big of an issue to be considering for AR1 (which to
>> a reasonable degree is about us committers figuring out how to drive).
> 
> A requirement of River to use a minimum JRE of 1.5 could be applied to AR1
> because Java is upwards compatible.

AR1 is meant to be compatible, although that might mean a lot of
different things for different people I don't believe that changing the
minimum J2SE Platform is one of them.

> AR1 could be compatible with 1.4 (based off jini2_1). However, by requiring
> 1.5, committers could generify some classes in the core architecture for
> type safety additions to River in later releases.
 >
> I am asking for the community to choose a minimum version of Java greater
> than 1.4.x to sail up the River.
> 
>> Might also be worth organizing some kind of canvas to find out what JDK
>> is in production around commercial Jini-user land.......

While interesting I doubt it is really that essential. I bet there are
working Jini 1.x systems on JDK 1.2.2 and some people/companies might
even have contractual obligations to support that and still Jini 2.x has
as a minimum J2SE 1.4.

I think it is more relevant to find out whether the penetration of J2SE
5.0 is high enough to warrant a move to that level. I've been against a
move to 5.0 in the past due to the fact a lot of Jini clients were
(mostly WebSphere) application servers that came with 1.4.2. Lately I
see a strong move that these are upgraded which for *me* allows 5.0 as
the minimum Platform given the time frame I expect for releases for River.

Therefore I'm comfortable with moving to 5.0 for releases after AR1 (and
after patches lingering around have been integrated) although I have no
opinion yet about taking 'advantage' of some of the language features in
5.0. But if we do I expect them to be binary compatible at least.

> I personally would like to see 1.6 as the minimum (GPL'ed Java) .

To me a bridge too far :-) I also don't understand what is that relevant
for Jini to warrant that level as the minimum, I can understand why
people deploy on Java SE 6 though.
-- 
Mark

Mime
View raw message