The status of Real Time Java is not a sentimental matter, but an instructive fact of Sun culture.
The first thing should be to see is where Java 1.6 might be a plus for River. Can you list these areas? That would be very helpful. MG On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote: > Well all sentimentality aside for JSR 1, I still stick with my earlier > suggestion of: > > I would encourage that as River moves along it's roadmap, once the namespace > is changed to org.apache.river, that River mandates 1.6 as a baseline. > Migration guides and/or utilities can be provided to assist in the transition > from legacy Jini to River. > > Regards > > Dennis > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 545PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote: > >> If there is a way to move forward and keep River compatible with Java 1.5, >> that would be ideal. We obviously cannot just stand still even though Java >> RTS might for a time. It is hard to tell at this stage what is happening >> because of the Oracle purchase of Sun and speculation is not a thing I like >> to do. However, we do know that Java RTS is the first Java Community >> Process, i.e. literally No. 1, and I cannot believe that Java would abandon >> this effort to the dustbin of history. That would not bode well for Java as >> a platform. >> >> MG >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote: >> >>> If you're fine with River 2.1.1 then you have a platform which you can move >>> forward with right? That release is baselined at Java 1.4. >>> >>> As River moves forward with it's roadmap, changing the com.sun namespace to >>> org.apache, and possibly moving to Java 1.6, you would still have a >>> platform (2.1.1) that you could use. >>> >>> As RTJ (hopefully) moves forward with eventual 1.6+ interoperability at >>> that point you could move to River, including product changes to account >>> for the namespace change as well. >>> >>> Does that suffice? >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 337PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote: >>> >>>> More on this later, but I am certainly aware that River cannot stay >>>> stagnant at Java 1.5. We need to be realistic but the real-time Java is >>>> going to "hit" in the near term, I think. There might need to be options >>>> and tracks and whatever makes sense to River. >>>> >>>> MG >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 127PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps this will help: on the generic question of going to Java 1.6, >>>>>> and my plea not to do it. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/33475 >>>>> >>>>> Michael, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the link. You may also find more information here: >>>>> http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/realtime/faq.jsp >>>>> >>>>> One thing on this topic that I am curious about is what Oracle's plan is >>>>> for RTJ. We certainly cant answer that in this forum. But... will they >>>>> keep it? If so, and if they are given a large enough business opportunity >>>>> for it's use, will they move towards supporting 1.6? While this is a very >>>>> interesting and compelling technical use of River, is it enough to >>>>> prohibit River moving to 1.6 and beyond? >>>>> >>>>> Just asking ... >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Dennis >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Michael McGrady >>>> Chief Architect >>>> Topia Technology, Inc. >>>> Cel 1.253.720.3365 >>>> Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037 >>>> mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> Michael McGrady >> Chief Architect >> Topia Technology, Inc. >> Cel 1.253.720.3365 >> Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037 >> mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com >> >> >> > Michael McGrady Chief Architect Topia Technology, Inc. Cel 1.253.720.3365 Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037 mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com
