>Dan Creswell wrote: >>John Sarman wrote: >> >> I know that most would like to see River have a release, but has anybody >> discussed making the minimum required JRE 1.5. >> Jini alway craved the need for templates and Generics and the move to River >> would allow for just that. >>
>That's been discussed over on Jini-Users a few times don't think there's >an agreed view (be worth checking through the archives). I also think >this is probably to big of an issue to be considering for AR1 (which to >a reasonable degree is about us committers figuring out how to drive). A requirement of River to use a minimum JRE of 1.5 could be applied to AR1 because Java is upwards compatible. AR1 could be compatible with 1.4 (based off jini2_1). However, by requiring 1.5, committers could generify some classes in the core architecture for type safety additions to River in later releases. I am asking for the community to choose a minimum version of Java greater than 1.4.x to sail up the River . >Might also be worth organizing some kind of canvas to find out what JDK >is in production around commercial Jini-user land....... I personally would like to see 1.6 as the minimum (GPL'ed Java) . -- John > Just Curious about this, > > Curiosity is good (on the flip side, it's been known to kill the odd cat > :) > > Cheers, > > Dan. > > > John Sarman > > > > On 9/5/07, Sean Landis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ok, this may be heretic to some...Given a choice, I'd much rather > >> prefer progress over backward compatibility. > >> > >> Sean > >> > >> On 9/4/07, Jim Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On Sep 4, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Dan Creswell wrote: > >>>> Gregg Wonderly wrote: > >>>>> Bob Scheifler wrote: > >>>>>> Gregg Wonderly wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Perhaps in view that jar layouts may change further, there might > be > >>>>>>> an official directory of deprecated jars so that documentation and > >>>>>>> discussions can focus on the nature of those jars? > >>>>>> Moving the existing deprecated jars (jini-core.jar, jini-ext.jar, > >>>>>> sdm-dl.jar, sun-util.jar) could break existing scripts/etc that > >>>>>> reference them, so if the desire is for AR1 to maintain maximum > >>>>>> compatibility, it would seem preferable to leave them where they > >>>>>> are. > >>>>> Your call, but my thoughts are that there will already be some > >>>>> changes > >>>>> involved in testing and integrating AR1, for many. So, having to > >>>>> change > >>>>> some referred to directory structures, etc, may not be a big impact > >>>>> overall. > >>>> What do the rest of the user-base think about this? ^^^ > >>>> > >>>> How much backward compatibility does everybody expect in this first > >>>> release? > >>>> > >>>> Anybody out there? > >>> Hey Dan- > >>> > >>> My guess is that we haven't made enough substantive progress in this > >>> (River) project yet to attract Jini users to these mailing lists. We > >>> certainly > >>> have some (who seem to be generally lurking), but it will not be > >>> (IMHO) until > >>> we get out a release or two before 'users' will start to be very > >>> vocal on this > >>> list. > >>> > >>> It might be better to ask this at jini/javaspaces-users right now. > >>> > >>> My 2c. > >>> > >>> -Jim > >>> > > > >
