On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Alex Karasulu <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On 2/9/11 12:18 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> All in all, switching to Java 6 is not *that* bad. i'm just wondering if >>>>>> the >>>>>> problem we have with the concurrent test tooling (which requires Java6) >>>>>> can't be workarounded by requiring the code to be compiled using Java 5 >>>>>> and >>>>>> run with Java 6. >>>>>> >>>>>> If not, then, well, let's go for Java 6 >>>>> >>>>> I think a test dependency (even when helpful by speeding up the build >>>>> and detecting concurrency issues) isn't worth that step. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Emmanuel that Java 5 or older is still used in companies >>>>> (just like in my current project). But I think Java 5 is mainly used >>>>> by commercial software like the fat application servers or ERP >>>>> software. If a company decides to use ApacheDS we can expect that they >>>>> know that there is something beyond Java 5. >>>> >>>> I was more specifically thinking about companies using ADS for unit tests. >>>> I >>>> have some clients doing that. >>> >>> Ok. There is no hurry to switch now, as we have a workaround for the >>> concurrency tests. >> >> Oh? What's up? > > Please see > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/directory-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1068307
Ahh OK I saw this before. I thought there was yet another solution. Thanks, Alex
