Sean Qiu wrote: > 2009/4/20 Tim Ellison <[email protected]>: >> Alexei Fedotov wrote: >>> Under resource constraints we may even think of dropping Java 5 in favor of >>> Java 6. This would save Java 6 supporters their merge efforts and nullify >>> merge bugs. >> Maybe. I hadn't thought of going that far - at least, not without a >> reasonable overlap period that allows people to migrate from 5.0 to 6.0 >> stream. >> >> Given we don't make a big deal of publishing the 6.0 stream code today, >> I think it would be unreasonable to abandon the 5.0 stream abruptly. We >> may well get to that point over time. >> >>> Why have not we done that before? AFAIK, one wanted to pass TCK for Java 5, >>> and that was an important step to ship Harmony release, which in turn was >>> important to officially participate in benchmarks. I don't think this plan >>> would fail due to 5% more failures we got due to Java version >>> incompatibilities. There are stronger risks, e.g. TCK absence. >> I agree, and that is why I'm proposing a different approach for the 6.0 >> stream. Rather than shoot for 100% completeness to the Java SE 6.0 API >> and request that TCK, I suggest we select a number of Harmony modules >> and publish a useful 'select' runtime. With our architecture it is then >> trivial to expand out with the additional modules to reach the full SE >> in time. >> > > Interesting. > > Then from whose point of view that we should focus on? > How should we define the "selected" modules ?
Good questions. Let's talk details on a separate thread. > Maybe we can discuss it by details to meet the goal which could and > should be customer or user oriented. If we were being trendy we'd target the "cloud computing" users, which has the added advantage of being anything we want it to be ;-) Regards, Tim
