Hi Brian,
Brian Murphy wrote:
I'm unclear why the old tree is even still visible.]
When the new structure was put in place, Mark B said that
at some point the old directory structure should eventually
be removed, but that hasn't happened yet.
That is because no issue was created for that and so I forgot about it
as I never look at the complete River tree these days. I've filed an
issue for that to fix.
I would be happy if we could assume JDK 6, but I gather that the
discussion to raise the minimum even to 5.0 is still pending.
Yes it is. And based on how long it took folks to agree on the
project name, I'm guessing a discussion on the jdk version
could take quite some time. So, since we're talking about a
I don't think it is completely fair to base the expected duration of
such a discussion on the one for the name, it is my experience that
without a compelling reasons to finish something quickly 90% people will
discuss forever ;-)
Somebody has to start that discussion anyway, so do you have a proposal
or want to drive that discussion?
My suggestion is to move to 1.5 for the release after AR2, whether we
want to take advantage of generics in the specs (in a compatible way)
I'm neutral about. Whether we want to start to generify the current
codebase that is rock-solid just for the sake of it, I'm not a big fan
of. I recall that generifying a lot of my libraries was an entertaining
exercise for the simple cases and frustrating for a lot of them.
1.6 is really a bridge to far, it is just a few weeks ago that I was
asked to make an estimate to port some applications written for 1.5 to
1.4 because well they want to deploy on WebSphere 6.0 (and this is a
very huge bank).
change to a test -- a single test -- not the actual River/Jini source,
I'm not sure I'd choose to wait for the results of that discussion
to provide a means for people to compile and run the tests;
especially given the fact that I was under the impression no one
was using those tests in the first place. If people are going to
be committing changes in the future, it seems like it would be
useful for them to take advantage of the hundreds and hundreds
of regression tests that already exist, rather than committing
on faith, or rolling their own test infrastructure.
I agree and it would be nice if e.g. such a test environment would be
arranged as part of a properly working nightly build. I thank you for
the instructions provided and hopefully I'll find some time so I can try
to get it running here, but it would be nice as well if somebody with a
lot more experience would sort things out a bit here at Apache.
That said, I'm wondering if there's a proposal implied in your
statement above. Are you maybe proposing that the changes
to the reggie/NameServiceImpl test be rolled back, and then
tell folks that they have to compile the tests under 1.4.x or 1.5?
If yes, then I'm certainly okay with that.
Admittedly, the changes I made were at best, a hack, and I made
them because I didn't think anyone else was going to. I focussed
on 1.6 because my company happens to rely on a number of 1.6
features, but I'm okay with requiring 1.4.x/1.5, if that's what you
were getting at. I just don't want to wait for the endless debates
on the jdk version to complete.
For the test infrastructure I have no real problem with 1.6 (I don't
know however for those with Mac OS X) although if it ain't much work to
modify I would prefer the same JVM level for all parts of River to
prevent from making mistakes.
--
Mark
