AW: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support (a little joke in the morning)

2003-03-20 Thread Jan . Materne
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 20. März 2003 08:26 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support If there is a serious bug in 1.5.3 (like not detecting Windows 2007 on JDK 2.9) long before we are ready

Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-20 Thread Stefan Moebius
--- Gus Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Loughran wrote: I'm very happy with the move. I just don't think we should use this as an excuse to go s/Hashtable/HashMap/ s/Vector/ArrayList/ through all the I would agree that this type of conversion is of limmited value. Just a side

Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Erik Hatcher
+1 On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 01:45 AM, Conor MacNeill wrote: Hi, This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only committer votes are binding. Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and

Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Conor MacNeill
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote: -0 and +1 on doing it after 1.6. I think this is a majority vote, isn't it? :-). I guess so, although I'd like to see consensus anyway. Your -0 isn't a veto, in any case. Do you have some reservations? Is it just a timing issue? +1 on

RE: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Steve Cohen
+1 -Original Message- From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support Hi, This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user lists. Please indicate your vote

Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Conor MacNeill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote: -0 and +1 on doing it after 1.6. I think this is a majority vote, isn't it? Your -0 isn't a veto, in any case. I know, and I wouldn't want it to be one. Do you have some

Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Danno Ferrin
+1, and about freaking time too... :) Conor MacNeill wrote: Hi, This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only committer votes are binding. Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build.

Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Steve Loughran
- Original Message - From: Conor MacNeill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 22:45 Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support Hi, This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free

Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Costin Manolache
Steve Loughran wrote: +1 At the same time, I dont see a need to run into refactoring everything we have today to move up to 1.2 support, 'just because we can'. It'll make it that much harder to back port patches to the 1.5.x codebase +1 on your comment ( and a preemptive -1 on changing

RE: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Costin Manolache
Dominique Devienne wrote: Given the above, there are no reasons to limit the 1.6 code base from *any* change that's JDK 1.2 (Java 2) compatible. That includes moving everything to the Java 2 Collections. As long as you don't break the public API. There are quite a few places where Hashtables

Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support

2003-03-19 Thread Gus Heck
Steve Loughran wrote: I don't see reasons to try to back-port fixes made on 1.6 to the 1.5. Only bugs identified by people running JDK 1.1 should make it to the 1.5 branch. This should be the only activity going on in that 1.5 branch. to date we are putting fixes to the 1.5 branch into 1.5.x,