river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: JVM version policy Was: Re: Build failed in Hudson: River-trunk-jdk1.5 #3
Date Fri, 03 Dec 2010 00:49:25 GMT
The way I see it, the really big gain is going to 1.5. That gets us the 
initial implementation of the concurrent and atomic classes in 
java.util.*, and generics.

Going to 1.6 adds some value, but not as big a step. For example, my 
TaskManager rewrite would be a bit simpler with the 1.6 version of 
java.util.TreeSet, but I can work around the missing methods.

I would rather give up the 1.6 features that are not in 1.5, at least 
for now, than give up an interested, active user.

Patricia


On 12/2/2010 4:17 PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote:
> The status of Real Time Java is not a sentimental matter, but an
> instructive fact of Sun culture.
>
> The first thing should be to see is where Java 1.6 might be a plus
> for River.  Can you list these areas?  That would be very helpful.
>
> MG
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>
>> Well all sentimentality aside for JSR 1, I still stick with my
>> earlier suggestion of:
>>
>> I would encourage that as River moves along it's roadmap, once the
>> namespace is changed to org.apache.river, that River mandates 1.6
>> as a baseline. Migration guides and/or utilities can be provided to
>> assist in the transition from legacy Jini to River.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 545PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote:
>>
>>> If there is a way to move forward and keep River compatible with
>>> Java 1.5, that would be ideal.  We obviously cannot just stand
>>> still even though Java RTS might for a time.  It is hard to tell
>>> at this stage what is happening because of the Oracle purchase of
>>> Sun and speculation is not a thing I like to do.  However, we do
>>> know that Java RTS is the first Java Community Process, i.e.
>>> literally No. 1, and I cannot believe that Java would abandon
>>> this effort to the dustbin of history.  That would not bode well
>>> for Java as a platform.
>>>
>>> MG
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you're fine with River 2.1.1 then you have a platform which
>>>> you can move forward with right? That release is baselined at
>>>> Java 1.4.
>>>>
>>>> As River moves forward with it's roadmap, changing the com.sun
>>>> namespace to org.apache, and possibly moving to Java 1.6, you
>>>> would still have a platform (2.1.1) that you could use.
>>>>
>>>> As RTJ (hopefully) moves forward with eventual 1.6+
>>>> interoperability at that point you could move to River,
>>>> including product changes to account for the namespace change
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>> Does that suffice?
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 337PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More on this later, but I am certainly aware that River
>>>>> cannot stay stagnant at Java 1.5.  We need to be realistic
>>>>> but the real-time Java is going to "hit" in the near term, I
>>>>> think.  There might need to be options and tracks and
>>>>> whatever makes sense to River.
>>>>>
>>>>> MG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 127PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps this will help: on the generic question of going
>>>>>>> to Java 1.6, and my plea not to do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/33475
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the link. You may also find more information
>>>>>> here:
>>>>>> http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/realtime/faq.jsp
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing on this topic that I am curious about is what
>>>>>> Oracle's plan is for RTJ. We certainly cant answer that in
>>>>>> this forum. But... will they keep it? If so, and if they
>>>>>> are given a large enough business opportunity for it's use,
>>>>>> will they move towards supporting 1.6? While this is a very
>>>>>> interesting and compelling technical use of River, is it
>>>>>> enough to prohibit River moving to 1.6 and beyond?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just asking ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dennis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael McGrady Chief Architect Topia Technology, Inc. Cel
>>>>> 1.253.720.3365 Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037
>>>>> mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Michael McGrady Chief Architect Topia Technology, Inc. Cel
>>> 1.253.720.3365 Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037
>>> mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Michael McGrady Chief Architect Topia Technology, Inc. Cel
> 1.253.720.3365 Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037
> mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com
>
>
>
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message