On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > > > On 6/17/2010 11:20 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > >> I'd be fine with requiring Java SE 6 for 2.2.1 and follow-on releases. > >> > > > > Is that even allowed by the Java EE 5 certification rules? > > Yes, but I don't think it really matters. I don't think we have any real > motivation to move to Java 6 -- there aren't Java 6 features that we're > planning on taking advantage of... It's simply someone "built" on Java 6 and found that they had problems > subsequently "running" on Java 5. > Besides someone "built" on Java 6, there might be other problems when using Java 6 as runtime. > > IMO, we should be building on Java 5 (maintaining support for Java 5), if > users want to run on Java 6, that's fine... > Sure we should maintain support for Java 5. But for Java 6, since we didn't pass the java EE 5 certification with Java 6 as runtime. It's better to document that. > > --kevan -- Shawn
