The Yoko ORB code still generates 1.4 compatible code. Since the ORB
doesn't have any direct dependencies on Geronimo, it probably can be
maintained as just being dependent on 1.4. On the other hand, there are
many times I wished I could use some of the stuff in 1.5 (such as the
concurrency classes). Harmony is a 1.5 JDK, so 1.4 compatibility is not
an issue for them. Yoko is used in the never released 1.2 Geronimo
version too. I suspect that's going to remain in its never released
state so I don't think Geronimo is an issue either.
I can go either way on the JDK issue depending on what the consensus is.
Rick
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
Hi Lars,
Just a note about JDK versions. Since Geronimo 2.x is targeted at
JEE5, 1.5 is actually a requirement now.
By the way - Welcome to Geronimo.
Jay
Lars Kühne wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 8:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
What cleanup steps need to be taken with the yoko code now that it's
been made a subproject in Geronimo? The first obvious one would be
to remove the non-core components from the trunk. The second would
be to remove the "incubating" from the version names.
Agreed
+1
Is JDK 1.4 still a given or has geronimo upgraded it's JDK dependency
to 1.5 since yoko entered the incubator? We shouldn't change the
required JDK in a point release, so this seems like a good time to
revisit this decision.
The current code was never made into an official Yoko release.
Should we attempt to get this out as an official v1 release as soon
as the basic cleanup is completed?
I think that some people had some concerns about a release but I think
that they were more focused on proper documentation and releasing a
well rounded product.
That was me. My concern wasn't so much about user docs but developer
level documentation, see the "Answer this question..." yoko issues in
jira. Those questions mostly about being able to attract new
developers.
It's my opinion that it's ok to release so long
as the code is good enough. With that said, I would like to make a
1.0 release.
Yes, the code could use some cleanup but it does pass certification
and we can always improve things later, in another release.
This of course assumes that we don't have to pay too much attention to
backward compatibility. Does each follow-up version have to be a
drop-in replacement of the first 1.0 release? Or is it OK to change
ORB properties and such, as long as the changes are documented in the
release notes (which is what I hope, but I don't know the requirements
of Geronimo and Harmony)?
Regards,
Lars
