PhET's customers are the educational market, which typically lags behind the technology curve. We only recently changed our minimum system requirement to include Java 1.5. So I suspect that it will be a long time (possibly years) before we change that requirement to Java 1.6, and only once we're confident that <5% of our users are using something earlier than Java 1.6. So requiring Java 1.6 for Piccolo 2.0 would mean that we would be unlikely to upgrade any time soon.
I also understand that Piccolo 2.0 will contain breaking changes. Since we have many products that use Piccolo, breaking changes will also slow our upgrade. That said... If you think it's the right thing to do, then I think you should go for it, and require Java 1.6 for Piccolo 2.0. But we aware that PhET is unlikely to be an early adopter of Piccolo 2.0. And convincing PhET management that we should be involved in 2.0 development or testing may be a tough sell. On Jul 19, 3:43 pm, Michael Heuer <heue...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thought I would ping the dev list -- I'm still looking for comments to > the changes for issues > > Refactor PPath to use Path2D on JDK > 1.6+http://code.google.com/p/piccolo2d/issues/detail?id=152 > > PArea, a wrapper for java.awt.geom.Area to allow Constructive Area > Geometry (CAG) > operationshttp://code.google.com/p/piccolo2d/issues/detail?id=153 > > A few things to consider: the changes are not binary compatible with > 1.3, so they need to go in 2.0; the minimum JDK version for 2.0 would > be bumped to JDK 1.6; and the current version of PPath is a widely > used class. > > If there are no objections in a week or so, I'll add the static > factory methods, complete the javadoc and unit tests, and commit to > trunk. > > michael -- Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en
