On Jue, 9 de Junio de 2005, 11:10, Ross Gardler dijo: > David Crossley wrote: >> Ferdinand Soethe wrote: >> >>>Any comments on this proposal? >> >> >> Yes i sent comments under another thread name: >> "required Java version" >> Would someone please follow up. It is a very important point. > > I've switched on my "lazy consensus" mode for this issue. In other words > I agree with Davids suggestion in the other thread (I think it was to > test against 1.4.1 and update docs accordingly).
The minor version number (after 1.4) is not much important for defining software requirements (minor version number always means full backward compatibility). As a sample, look at cocoon, we claim to be java 1.3 or higher. For testing compatibility, given the above facts in the real world we only need to use currently 3 JDK's 1.3 1.4 1.5 Now if I use to check for 1.3, said: 1.3.1_14, 1.3.1_15 or 1.3.0_3 is irrelevant. It will run. The same apply for the other 2 java versions. I will suggest to state only "1.4" as the minimal JDK version in forrest? Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
