Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-14 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Torsten Curdt wrote: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can come to a conclusion now. Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, but afaik the avalon framework requires JDK 1.3 anyway and the poll started recently showed, that most are us

RE: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Marcus Crafter wrote: > > > > > Personally, I don't see a real problem with this. If we use a > new container, > > we change the inheritance from ECM to whatever container we use. > > Well, I know we don't change container implementations all that > often :) so perhaps this is a bit a

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Marcus Crafter
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:35:41PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Marcus Crafter wrote, On 13/03/2003 12.12: > ... > > BTW - I was just about to email you a question regarding > > CocoonComponentManager. > > > > The current version extends from ECM, which hardcodes us to >

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Marcus Crafter
Hi Carsten! On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:33:41PM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Marcus Crafter wrote: > > > > BTW - I was just about to email you a question regarding > > CocoonComponentManager. > > > > The current version extends from ECM, which hardcodes us to > > that container

RE: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Marcus Crafter wrote: > > BTW - I was just about to email you a question regarding > CocoonComponentManager. > > The current version extends from ECM, which hardcodes us to > that container implementation - do you think it's possible to find > another way so we can all

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Marcus Crafter wrote, On 13/03/2003 12.12: ... BTW - I was just about to email you a question regarding CocoonComponentManager. The current version extends from ECM, which hardcodes us to that container implementation - do you think it's possible to find another way so we can alleviate thi

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Marcus Crafter
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:02:55PM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > I think it's the Excalibur component subproject that requires 1.3 > > now due to the use of Proxy classes inside of ECM. > > > Ah, yes, sorry - you're right. It's excalibur not the framework. No problem mate - w

RE: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Marcus Crafter wrote: > > Hi Carsten! > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:27:19AM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can > > come to a conclusion now. > > Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, > > but afaik the avalon framewor

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Marcus Crafter
Hi Carsten! On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:27:19AM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can > come to a conclusion now. > Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, > but afaik the avalon framework requires JDK 1.3 anyway and > the pol

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Torsten Curdt
Carsten Ziegeler wrote: We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can come to a conclusion now. Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, but afaik the avalon framework requires JDK 1.3 anyway and the poll started recently showed, that most are using 1.3 or 1.4. And 2.