On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Gus Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it would appear that the core may in fact be single
> threaded.
But with several places that may get accessed from multiple threads.
Properties defined in a task, stuff written to the logging system
(explicitly or by Thread writing to
Having said that, has anyone ever thought about whether the transition
from synchronized 1.1 collections to unsynchronized 1.2 collections
might pose any problems?
At one time my understanding was that ant was esentially single
threaded, but I just did some grepping and found the following places
--- Gus Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Loughran wrote:
> > I'm very happy with the move. I just don't think we should use this
> as
> > an excuse to go s/Hashtable/HashMap/ s/Vector/ArrayList/ through
> all the
>
> I would agree that this type of conversion is of limmited value.
Just
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 20. März 2003 08:26
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
>
> If there is a serious bug in 1.5.3 (like not detecting Windows 2007 on
> JDK
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From what I gathered, JDK 1.1 support is already broken in a few
> places in Ant 1.5.x,
In 1.5.2, yes. Whether the binary releases of 1.5 and 1.5.1 really
don't work on JDK 1.1 has to be verified (on my TODO list for today).
>
Christoph Wilhelms wrote:
Hi Costin!
+1 on your comment ( and a preemptive -1 on changing any
public method that
uses Hashtables to use Maps - "just because we can" :-).
Using Maps in new
code or tasks should be fine.
Refactoring some of the introspection code - like support for
context class
Hi Costin!
> +1 on your comment ( and a preemptive -1 on changing any
> public method that
> uses Hashtables to use Maps - "just because we can" :-).
> Using Maps in new
> code or tasks should be fine.
>
> Refactoring some of the introspection code - like support for
> context class
> loader
At 10:45 PM 3/18/2003, Conor MacNeill wrote:
Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build. Releases from the 1.5
branch will be the last to support JDK 1.1 compilation, including Ant 1.5.3
and any subsequent maintenance releases. The ability to compile/build for JDK
1.1 deployment continues to
Steve Loughran wrote:
I don't see reasons to try to back-port fixes made on 1.6 to the 1.5.
Only
bugs identified by people running JDK 1.1 should make it to the 1.5
branch.
This should be the only activity going on in that 1.5 branch.
to date we are putting fixes to the 1.5 branch into 1.5.x, bo
Dominique Devienne wrote:
> Given the above, there are no reasons to limit the 1.6 code base from
> *any* change that's JDK 1.2 (Java 2) compatible. That includes moving
> everything to the Java 2 Collections.
As long as you don't break the public API.
There are quite a few places where Hashtabl
Dominique Devienne wrote:
I'm not following this line of thought...
From what I gathered, JDK 1.1 support is already broken in a few places in
Ant 1.5.x, *and* there are very few 1.1 users since nobody ever complained
about 1.5.1/2's bytecode not being 1.1 compatible!
Leaving JDK 1.1 behind should
I'm not following this line of thought...
Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> +1
>
> At the same time, I dont see a need to run into refactoring everything we
> have today to move up to 1.2 support, 'just because we can'. It'll make it
> that much harder to back port patches to the 1.5.x codebase
+1 on your comment ( and a preemptive -1 on chang
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 22:45
Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
> Hi,
>
> This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and
user
> lists. P
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 23:21
Subject: Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
>
> BTW, maintaining support for the widest range of users and OSes for so
long
> is very
I'm not a commiter, but I'd just like to say...
+1.2 :-)
-Gus
Conor MacNeill wrote:
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user
lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only committer
votes are binding.
Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to com
+1,
and about freaking time too... :)
Conor MacNeill wrote:
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user
lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only committer
votes are binding.
Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build. Releases
+1
-Original Message-
From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user
lists. Please indicate your vote
+1
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 14:16, Steve Cohen wrote:
> +1
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:45 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This i
+1
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:45 AM
Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
> Hi,
>
> This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and
user
>
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>
>> -0 and +1 on doing it after 1.6. I think this is a majority vote,
>> isn't it?
>
> Your -0 isn't a veto, in any case.
I know, and I wouldn't want it to be one.
> Do you hav
+1
-Original Message-
From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and
user
lists. Please indicate your vote
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> -0 and +1 on doing it after 1.6. I think this is a majority vote,
> isn't it?
:-). I guess so, although I'd like to see consensus anyway. Your -0 isn't a
veto, in any case. Do you have some reservations? Is it just a timing issue?
>
> +1 o
+1
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 01:45 AM, Conor MacNeill wrote:
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and
user
lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only
committer
votes are binding.
Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build.
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and
> user lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only
> committer votes are binding.
>
> Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build. Releases from the 1.5
> branch w
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build.
-0 and +1 on doing it after 1.6. I think this is a majority vote,
isn't it?
> Releases from the 1.5 branch will be the last to support JDK 1.1
> compilation, including Ant 1.5.3 a
> [...]
> Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build. Releases
> from the 1.5
> branch will be the last to support JDK 1.1 compilation,
> including Ant 1.5.3
> and any subsequent maintenance releases. The ability to
> compile/build for JDK
> 1.1 deployment continues to be supported in
Hi,
This is to formalize the discussions which have gone on on the dev and user
lists. Please indicate your vote. Everyone is free to vote but only committer
votes are binding.
Ant 1.6 will require JDK 1.2 to compile and build. Releases from the 1.5
branch will be the last to support JDK 1.1 c
28 matches
Mail list logo
