<> wrote:

> 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.

Do you have those numbers for your current users?  As far as I know
Mac OSX on PowerPC is the only platform that doesn't have a 1.6 JDK
available.  That probably is a large percentage of the educational
market though.

> 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.

I forsee the 1.3 branch having a long lifetime, since in addition to
the package name change, there will be several breaking changes in
2.0.  We just need to make sure that non-breaking changes on 2.0/trunk
are also merged back into the 1.3 branch.


Piccolo2D Developers Group:

Reply via email to