Right, stay with SE 5. But document that there might be some potential issue(e.g. webservice problems caused by SE 6 bundled saaj and jaxb) when working with SE 6.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Donald Woods <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, just found GERONIMO-5369 and it turns out not to be an issue, so > lets stay with SE 5 for 2.2. > > > -Donald > > > On 6/17/10 12:26 PM, Kevan Miller 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. > > > > IMO, we should be building on Java 5 (maintaining support for Java 5), if > users want to run on Java 6, that's fine... > > > > --kevan > -- Shawn
