Yeah, it might actually run fine if you remove the enum support from the
type handlers... can't remember if there's anything else specific to 1.5.

That's probably the best plan though.  Grab the source, build under 1.4,
remove whatever breaks.

Cheers,
Clinton

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Kai Grabfelder <nos...@kaigrabfelder.de>wrote:

> looks like the throtling was removed with rev Revision: 547857
>
> so I guess you need to look at some revision before that. Or maybe diff
> that revision with the 2.3.0 tag
>
> You could also try to compile a 1.4 compatible version of the latest
> release using retrotranslator...
>
> Best regards
>
> Kai
>
> --- Original Nachricht ---
> Absender: Davy Toch
> Datum: 31.03.2009 18:07
> > Thanks for the quick reply!
> >
> > Regarding your comments:
> >
> >>> No... we now require JDK 1.5.  It's been 6 years... so it's time to
> > upgrade.   :-/
> >
> > Our client still has WebLogic 8, so we're required to stick to JDK 1.4
> for a
> > while.
> >
> >>> Typically we support Java versions N - 1.  So whatever the current
> > version is, minus one.  The current version is 1.6, so we support 1.5 and
> > 1.6.  This might change if Sun starts releasing more often, but for now,
> > it's a reasonable policy.
> >
> > According to the iBATIS website the last version supporting JDK 1.4 is
> > iBATIS 2.3.0.677, so does it mean a fix for IBATIS-249 isn't available in
> a
> > JDK1.4-compliant version of iBATIS?
> >
> >>> If you're familiar with Subversion, you can diff the tags between
> > releases to see what has changed.  I'd send you the exact URL, but
> > unfortunately it seems that Apache's SVN repository is suffering from
> some
> > malfunction right now...  I'll try later.
> >
> > According to the information of the IBATIS-249 issue the problem was
> found
> > in v1.1.7 and fixed in 2.2.0, so doing a diff between these 2 versions
> would
> > show what was modified. But the problem reappeared in *2.3.0.677* which
> is
> > our current version and was fixed in a later version, but I'm not sure in
> > which later version because it's not indicated in the issue.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Davy Toch
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Clinton Begin <clinton.be...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> >> 1) Is this fix available in iBATIS 2.3.1.710 which can be downloaded
> >> from http://apache.mogo.be/ibatis/binaries/ibatis.java?
> >>
> >> We don't run that repository, so we can't confirm anything about those
> >> binaries.  I don't see them in the list of Apache mirrors on our site,
> so
> >> for all we know, they're hard drive eating trojans.  :-)
> >>
> >> >> 2) Is iBATIS 2.3.1.710 also still usable for JDK 1.4 or do we need
> JDK
> >> 1.5?
> >>
> >> No... we now require JDK 1.5.  It's been 6 years... so it's time to
> >> upgrade.   :-/
> >>
> >> Typically we support Java versions N - 1.  So whatever the current
> version
> >> is, minus one.  The current version is 1.6, so we support 1.5 and 1.6.
>  This
> >> might change if Sun starts releasing more often, but for now, it's a
> >> reasonable policy.
> >>
> >> >> 3) Is iBATIS 2.3.1.710 already stable? If not, could somebody tell me
> >> which Java sources were modified in this version in order to correct the
> >> above problem, so we can patch iBATIS ourself if really necessary?
> >>
> >> That's actually an old beta version.  You should ensure to always get
> >> iBATIS from the source:  http://ibatis.apache.org   There you can see
> the
> >> most recent version is 2.3.4.726
> >>
> >> http://ibatis.apache.org/javadownloads.cgi
> >>
> >> If you're familiar with Subversion, you can diff the tags between
> releases
> >> to see what has changed.  I'd send you the exact URL, but unfortunately
> it
> >> seems that Apache's SVN repository is suffering from some malfunction
> right
> >> now...  I'll try later.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Clinton
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Davy Toch <davy.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We urgently need the patch that was described for iBATIS *2.3.0.677*:
> >>>
> >>>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IBATIS-249
> >>>
> >>> in order to fix the problem described in the comment by A. Rahman:
> >>>
> >>> A Rahman<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=akarahman>added
> a comment - 19/Mar/08
> >>> 06:18 AMI have the same problem occuring with ibatis 2.3.0.677, any
> >>> solution, please let us know. Did got resolved to anybody?
> >>>
> >>> at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
> >>> - waiting on <0x3fa8a3b0> (a java.lang.Object)
> >>> at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:429)
> >>> at com.ibatis.common.util.Throttle.increment(Throttle.java:70)
> >>> - locked <0x3fa8a3b0> (a java.lang.Object)
> >>> at com.ibatis.common.util.ThrottledPool.pop(ThrottledPool.java:57)
> >>> at
> >>>
> com.ibatis.sqlmap.engine.impl.SqlMapExecutorDelegate.popSession(SqlMapExecutorDelegate.java:933)
> >>> at
> >>>
> com.ibatis.sqlmap.engine.impl.SqlMapSessionImpl.<init>(SqlMapSessionImpl.java:51)
> >>> at
> >>>
> com.ibatis.sqlmap.engine.impl.SqlMapClientImpl.openSession(SqlMapClientImpl.java:229)
> >>>
> >>> Apparently this was fixed as indicated by the last comment of the
> issue:
> >>>
> >>> Clinton Begin<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=cbegin>added a
> comment - 20/Mar/08
> >>> 06:20 AM
> >>> Sorry Abdur, my mistake. I was thinking of a different bug. This was
> >>> indeed an iBATIS problem. But no longer.
> >>>
> >>> I have a few minor changes to make and I plan on trying to get the new
> >>> beta out this week.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Clinton
> >>>
> >>> My questions are :
> >>> 1) Is this fix available in iBATIS 2.3.1.710 which can be downloaded
> from
> >>> http://apache.mogo.be/ibatis/binaries/ibatis.java?
> >>> 2) Is iBATIS 2.3.1.710 also still usable for JDK 1.4 or do we need JDK
> >>> 1.5?
> >>> 3) Is iBATIS 2.3.1.710 already stable? If not, could somebody tell me
> >>> which Java sources were modified in this version in order to correct
> the
> >>> above problem, so we can patch iBATIS ourself if really necessary?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Davy Toch
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

Reply via email to