> * It's out for Linux on some architectures but what am I going to do > with my alpha - if I had one that is.
If. If you are hard core Java though, at some point you migrate to the platforms with decent Java support. It's unfortunate, but... > * What's with HP/UX and several of IBM's OSs - everything that's not > AIX I mean. HP/UX has had decent JDK 1.2 support since forever ago. They were one of the first people out with JDK 1.2 -- and I think that at the 1.2 launch they actually had a better performing implementation of 1.2 than anybody else. > You knew somebody would say that and that this kind of discussion > could get infinite. Yep. But it's my kneejerk reaction. I'm tired of the cycle of waiting to move to 1.2. It's a silly cycle, but marketers look at developers, see that they are using 1.1, then decide to stay at 1.1. Apple didn't make JDK 1.2 a priority until Mac OS X because their marketing people were convinced that since all development was happening with 1.1, they could justify staying with 1.1. This is all been talked about on mrj-dev, so there's no inside info here btw. > But the main question - to mee at least - is, do we need Java 2 > features at all? Do we really *need* 1.1 features. :) Yes, you could make do with 1.0 if you really wanted to. OK, so that could be considered a troll, but you see my point don't you? > I see that File.getParentFile could not be used in Project.copyFile > but is this really a problem? Where would Ant benefit from JDK 1.2? Collections. File.listRoots() -- could be damn handy in resolving file names that start with a letter':' pattern. File.setLastModified() -- some people doing builds set a build time. File.setReadOnly() -- could be nice. JarInputStream / OutputStream for building jars with manifests and sigs Manifest -- also for modifying manifests JarURLConnection -- for tweaking resources inside jars There's other things, mostly small, but useful to not have to recreate. .duncan
