The way I see it, the really big gain is going to 1.5. That gets us the
initial implementation of the concurrent and atomic classes in
java.util.*, and generics.
Going to 1.6 adds some value, but not as big a step. For example, my
TaskManager rewrite would be a bit simpler with the 1.6 version of
java.util.TreeSet, but I can work around the missing methods.
I would rather give up the 1.6 features that are not in 1.5, at least
for now, than give up an interested, active user.
Patricia
On 12/2/2010 4:17 PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote:
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
