Hi Hiranya and all, Since we are discussing to migrate to a higher version of Java, why shouldn't we migrate to JRE 1.6, which has improvements over JRE 1.5 (ref, http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/features.html).
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Hiranya Jayathilaka <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Both approaches you have suggested are excellent. However I feel that option > 1 (having a seprate Java5 branch) is cleaner and simpler. (That is the idea > I thought of first, so I could be biased) With that approach we would be > shipping a smaller code base. Java 5 folks get only Java 5 code and the > users on Java 1.3 get only Java 1.3 code. Also with the second approach > won't our build/compilation process gets more complex? > > Thanks, > Hiranya > > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Michael Glavassevich <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Hiranya, >> >> Hiranya Jayathilaka <[email protected]> wrote on 05/06/2009 08:16:52 >> AM: >> >> > Hi Michael, >> > >> > Just a little idea that came to mind (I'm not sure whether even if >> > it is possible). Can we branch out from the trunk and maintain a >> > Java5 version of Xerces in a different branch? We can do Xerces >> > releases for Java 5, based on the branch and when the community is >> > ready to migrate to Java 5 all we have to do is merge the branch to >> > the trunk. Until we do that people who are already on Java 5 can use >> > our Java5 version of Xerces. >> > >> > It is probably more work to us. But I think given the benefits of >> > moving to Java 5, I think it's worth it. WDYT? >> >> How much work it might be would somewhat depend on the kind of changes >> that are being made on the branch. For example, mechanical changes like >> StringBuffer -> StringBuilder, new Integer() -> Integer.valueOf() would help >> improve performance and should be fairly easy to maintain. Others like usage >> of generics, for each loops, varargs and other Java 5 syntactic sugar in the >> internals really only benefits Xerces developers (i.e. us) except that it >> might make it much harder to apply patches between branches. >> >> Keeping the trunk and the xml-schema-1.1-dev branches in synch hasn't been >> too bad, so perhaps maintaining one for Java 5 might not have quite that >> much more overhead. >> >> Alternatively we could create classes that are smart enough to use Java 5 >> capability if its available. For example: >> >> public abstract class Util { >> public static Util getUtil() { >> // returns Util_13 or Util_15 depending on the JDK level >> } >> public abstract Integer valueOf(int i); >> } >> >> public class Util_13 extends Util { >> public Integer valueOf(int i) { >> return new Integer(i); >> } >> } >> >> public class Util_15 extends Util { >> public Integer valueOf(int i) { >> return new Integer.valueOf(i); >> } >> } >> >> which would work for users on earlier JDKs but do better things on Java 5 >> and above. Then I think the Java 1.3 and 5 versions could co-exist on the >> trunk and we could have one unified release including both. Hopefully less >> work for us and users get the benefit of Java 5 improvements. >> >> We did something similar early on (i.e. SecuritySupport vs. >> SecuritySupport12) when we were still supporting JDK 1.1 to take advantage >> of Java 1.2's security framework. >> >> > Thanks, >> > Hiranya >> >> > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Michael Glavassevich >> > <[email protected] >> > > wrote: >> > Hi Hiranya, >> > >> > The discussion branched out on to several mailing lists [1]. Plus I >> > got a few private e-mails. There are still users and projects which >> > depend on Xerces that are still stuck on earlier JDKs (including 1. >> > 3) so we only voted to drop support for Java 1.2 right now. So based >> > on that feedback (from November of last year) I think it's still too >> > early for us to make the move to Java 5. Perhaps we can ask the >> > question to the community again after we've had a release or two >> > with Java 1.3 being the minimum. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > [1] http://markmail.org/search/?q=%22Dropping%20JDK%201.2%20support% >> > 20for%20Xerces-J%22#query:%22Dropping%20JDK%201.2%20support%20for% >> > 20Xerces-J%22%20order%3Adate-backward+page:1+state:facets >> > >> > Michael Glavassevich >> > XML Parser Development >> > IBM Toronto Lab >> > E-mail: [email protected] >> > E-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > Hiranya Jayathilaka <[email protected]> wrote on 05/06/2009 05:56:54 >> > AM: >> > >> > >> > > Hi Folks, >> > > >> > > I would like to know the team's view on migrating to Java 5. I >> > > remember this subject being discussed in the mailing list a several >> > > months back and we did receive some encouraging comments from the >> > > communit too [1]. But the things have gone pretty quiet ever since. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > -- >> > > Hiranya Jayathilaka >> > > E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 >> > > Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com >> > > >> > > [1] - http://xerces-j-dev.markmail.org/message/2lw4gnijzmno5e4l >> > >> > -- >> > Hiranya Jayathilaka >> > E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 >> > Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com >> >> Thanks. >> >> Michael Glavassevich >> XML Parser Development >> IBM Toronto Lab >> E-mail: [email protected] >> E-mail: [email protected] > > > -- > Hiranya Jayathilaka > Software Engineer; > WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org > E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 > Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com > -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
