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 TO
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
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
Hi!
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on
> the following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be
> clearly documented
+1 Even for 1.5.x beeing the last JDK 1.1 release. We can start 1.2+
refactoring (like using collections) in 1.6 and continue i
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Most likely a "fix" will be more introspection magic...
>
> Not in this case. The code that is JDK 1.2 dependent in Diagnostics
> can be replaced by 1.1 code without too much pain (it can be stolen
> from the JUnit task, for example).
Maybe in this case - but more cod
At 03:28 PM 3/13/2003, Conor MacNeill wrote:
I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented
+1
2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to
later versions?)
I d
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the
following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
documented
I would say 1.5.x so long as x is not frozen. IOW, if there
are
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ?
>>
>> Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has
>> a st
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against
>>> JDK 1.1 for a while now (due to diagnostics changes).
>>
>> But I've nagged Steve about it and promise to fix it during the
>> next fe
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ?
>
> Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has
> a strong requirement of compiling against 1.1.
And using ant1.5 won't be enoug
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Fine with me.
>
> I'd like to keep 1.6 compatible to JDK 1.1, though. When we make 1.2
> a requirement, we'd better start using collections and URLClassloader
> consistently - and doing this for 1.6 would push 1.6 even further down
> the timeline.
There are 3 issues:
1.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ?
Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has
a strong requirement of compiling against 1.1.
> Are any active committers that are willing to support 1.1 ?
So
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
> documented
Fine with me.
I'd like to keep 1.6 compatible to JDK 1.1, though. When we make 1.2
a requirement, we'd better start using collections and URLClassloade
Steve Loughran wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:53
Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support
Then let's figure out if we shouldn't drop JDK1.1 now.
I think moving to 1.2
Adam Murdoch wrote:
> It would also be a perfect time for a bit of selective
> backwards-compatibility breaking at the code level: eg sort out the
> classloader heirarchy, ditch deprecated methods, separate the core into
> public api and private internals, split up project's responsibilities,
> se
Steve Loughran wrote:
>> I'm +1 to maintaining support for 1.1 if at least one committer is
>> willing to volunteer to support it ( and does it ).
>
> 1. what do we gain from dropping 1.1 support at this stage in ant1.6?
Few things. Using URLClassLoader would simplify a lot of code - to me
that
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 01:02 pm, Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> Maybe we should ask the user community, not the dev mailing list.
>
Good idea - done.
--
Conor MacNeill
Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:53
Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support
> Then let's figure out if we shouldn't drop JDK1.1 now.
>
> Is there any active co
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:28 pm, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
> documented
+1 for ditching JDK 1.1. Presumably we would still support compilation with
an exte
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:53 am, Costin Manolache wrote:
> Conor MacNeill wrote:
> > I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the
> > following
> >
> > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
> > documented
>
> +1
> ( I would be +1 on making ant1.5 the la
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the
> following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
> documented
+1
( I would be +1 on making ant1.5 the last JDK1.1 release :-)
> 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:10
Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support
>
> >
> > yes, that was my fault, wasnt it. File a bug aga
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:55 am, Steve Loughran wrote:
> From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website.
>
> I think it should be preserved.
>
Some it is still interesting and worth keeping. By cruft I mean statements
like
"We are currently hashing out
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 15:28
Subject: JDK 1.1 support
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the
following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x
+1
-Original Message-
From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JDK 1.1 support
I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This
+1
-Original Message-
From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JDK 1.1 support
I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This
I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented
2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to
later versions?)
3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to
52 matches
Mail list logo
