river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John Sarman" <johnsar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: a potential "AR1" release
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:48:27 GMT
>Dan Creswell wrote:
>>John Sarman wrote:
>>
>> I know that most would like to see River have a release, but has anybody
>> discussed making the minimum required JRE 1.5.
>> Jini alway craved the need for templates and Generics and the move to
River
>> would allow for just that.
>>

>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
>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 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.......

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

--
John


> Just Curious about this,
>
> Curiosity is good (on the flip side, it's been known to kill the odd cat
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan.
>
> > John Sarman
> >
> > On 9/5/07, Sean Landis <sean.landis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ok, this may be heretic to some...Given a choice, I'd much rather
> >> prefer progress over backward compatibility.
> >>
> >> Sean
> >>
> >> On 9/4/07, Jim Hurley <Jim.Hurley@sun.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sep 4, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Dan Creswell wrote:
> >>>> Gregg Wonderly wrote:
> >>>>> Bob Scheifler wrote:
> >>>>>> Gregg Wonderly wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps in view that jar layouts may change further, there
might
> be
> >>>>>>> an official directory of deprecated jars so that documentation
and
> >>>>>>> discussions can focus on the nature of those jars?
> >>>>>> Moving the existing deprecated jars (jini-core.jar, jini-ext.jar,
> >>>>>> sdm-dl.jar, sun-util.jar) could break existing scripts/etc that
> >>>>>> reference them, so if the desire is for AR1 to maintain maximum
> >>>>>> compatibility, it would seem preferable to leave them where
they
> >>>>>> are.
> >>>>> Your call, but my thoughts are that there will already be some
> >>>>> changes
> >>>>> involved in testing and integrating AR1, for many.  So, having to
> >>>>> change
> >>>>> some referred to directory structures, etc, may not be a big impact
> >>>>> overall.
> >>>> What do the rest of the user-base think about this? ^^^
> >>>>
> >>>> How much backward compatibility does everybody expect in this first
> >>>> release?
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody out there?
> >>> Hey Dan-
> >>>
> >>> My guess is that we haven't made enough substantive progress in this
> >>> (River) project yet to attract Jini users to these mailing lists.  We
> >>> certainly
> >>> have some (who seem to be generally lurking), but it will not be
> >>> (IMHO) until
> >>> we get out a release or two before 'users' will start to be very
> >>> vocal on this
> >>> list.
> >>>
> >>> It might be better to ask this at jini/javaspaces-users right now.
> >>>
> >>> My 2c.
> >>>
> >>> -Jim
> >>>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message