I don't it's so much a question of how many VM's are installed, but whether different modules, apps, components, etc. can interoperate in the same VM.
Alexey 2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS) 1992 Kawasaki EX500 http://azinger.blogspot.com http://bsheet.sourceforge.net http://wcollage.sourceforge.net --- On Wed, 10/1/08, Casper Bang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Casper Bang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Old Java versions in use > To: "The Java Posse" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 12:44 PM > Sure, but it takes even less time to simply use the JRE > version for > which an application is certified for and has been > confirmed working > on. It's not like the extra 50mb space taken by an > alternative version > matters much on a 2TB SAN. > > Seriously, does anyone really strive to only have one > vendor and one > version of a JRE installed? Oracle SQLDeveloper doesn't > work with Java > 6, Oracle Discoverer needs Java 1.4, localization for > Danish is broken > in Java 1.5 etc. etc. > > /Casper > > On Oct 1, 4:50 pm, Alexey Zinger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure, it takes time to test, but it takes a lot less > time to test something, find that it works and give your > blessing to run it on the newer VM, than release it, find > that something's broken if you upgrade the VM and have > to deal with it. > > > > Alexey > > 2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS) > > 1992 Kawasaki > EX500http://azinger.blogspot.comhttp://bsheet.sourceforge.nethttp://wcollage.sourceforge.net > > > > --- On Wed, 10/1/08, Casper Bang > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: Casper Bang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Old Java versions > in use > > > To: "The Java Posse" > <[email protected]> > > > Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 7:49 AM > > > True but is the payback worth the trouble? The > only way to > > > truly know > > > your app can run is to test each and every > scenario of it, > > > very hard > > > to do, so its safest to just stay with an old. A > base class > > > might have > > > gotten a new method, a bug which you relied on > has been > > > fixed etc. > > > > > So I kinda agrees with Matthew. Perhaps it's > not worth > > > it sacrificing > > > innovation for (various levels of) backwards > compatibility > > > when it's > > > often more a theoretical advantage than a > realistic, > > > practical one. > > > > > /Casper > > > > > On Oct 1, 12:35 pm, "Lars Westergren" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > So the funny thing to me, is that > unless i'm > > > missing something, all the > > > > > effort that Sun went to trying to keep > backwards > > > compatibility was all for > > > > > nowt, as there's plenty of other > factors that > > > bind applications to pre-1.5, > > > > > that can't be resolved trivially. > > > > > > Logical fallacy I think. Isn't this like > saying > > > "Efforts to reduce > > > > crime are for nowt because there is still > crime"? > > > Every time you start > > > > a java app on a new JVM and it works, that > is one > > > success. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Lars > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
