AW: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support (a little joke in the morning)
-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 2.9) long before we are ready to release Ant 1.6, I think we should backport the fix to the 1.5 branch and do yet another 1.5.x release. On my Windows 2007 system the Palladium kernel sais: You are not allowed to install Java on this machine! Try C# instead. So I can´t use the JDK 2.9 :-( smile/ Jan Matèrne
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
--- 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 a side note: This conversion would IMHO not only be of limited value, but plain wrong. If anything, it should be s/Hashtable/Map/ s/Vector/List, as far as interfaces are concerned. Not only does this much more adhere to OOD principles, it also keeps a refactored interface source-compatible with 1.1 clients, as Hashtable also implements Map. This way there is no need for an all-at-once, merciless refactoring... 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? Stefan = Stefan Moebius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wurzener Str. 43+49 351 8475827 01127 Dresden +49 172 8739617 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
+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. 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 all releases. Here is my +1 -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
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 on making 1.5.4 (if needed) support JDK 1.1. And Ant 1.5.5 :-) -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
RE: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
+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. 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 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 all releases. Here is my +1 -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
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 have some reservations? Is it just a timing issue? Mainly a timing issue, yes. I realize that the split-up optional.jar thing is almost crying for help from URLClassLoader, so I almost buy that a switch now is necessary. It just feels (to me) better to do such a move completely than doing it in an incosistent manner. Stefan
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
+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 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 all releases. Here is my +1
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
- 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. 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 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 all releases. +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
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
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 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 or jdk1.2 methods - is worth it ( IMO ), as it'll make the code easier to understand. Costin
RE: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
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 Hashtables are used. Hashtable is still part of JDK1.2 AFAIK ( and implements Map), so we are already using Java2 Collections :-) Costin
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.1 support
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, both minor and major, the zip work being the biggest. If any of that work had been in Java1.2 style, we couldnt have back ported it. Some of the changes (I think of the weak reference stuff) did have extra work to get into 1.1 compliance, incidentally. Once 1.6 ships, then we can stop doing any work to the 1.5.x branch, so this issue of having to back port code into a java1.1. compatible branch goes away. Except for people who want to maintain 1.1 support, and they get to do the work themselves. So we should wait till after the release to refactor our code? 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. I dont see the java2 collections as the compelling reason for this. They are nice, I use them, but it is really things like classloader, security manager, weak references and other major system changes that are forcing the move. I also see the reflection tests for existance of 1.2 methods as adding substantial clutter to the code. I think removing these is quite valuable to people trying to understand the flow of our code. I think these should be eliminated at a rate greater than slowly but surely :). As I said before, 1.5.x is a damn good release (once 1.5.3 is out), and should more than satisfy JDK 1.1 users (wherever they're hiding). The buck has to stop somewhere, and from the votes, it's clear 1.6 should depend on JDK 1.2. This should not prevent though JDK 1.2 to be fully used everywhere it's possible. Steve and Costin might as well -1 the move to JDK 1.2 with this kind of thinking. --DD 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. It should probably happen, but it would be low on the priorety list I think. Use of Iterator rather than enumeration might be of some value, again from the standpoint of code clarity. old code, of which there is a frighteningly large amount, just for the sake of it. I know this is at odds with 'refactor mercilessly', but as Conor's test coverage data shows, we dont have the test coverage to refactor mercilessly :( Perhaps, rather than saying don't refactor until 1.7, (or will it be 2.1?) we should say if you want to refactor it, and it doesn't have a test case write the testcases before refactoring it?
Re: JDK 1.1 support
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 design details for Ant2 yes, that was my fault, wasnt it. File a bug against me :) :-) -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
Re: JDK 1.1 support
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 URLClassloader consistently - and doing this for 1.6 would push 1.6 even further down the timeline. 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to later versions?) 1.2 OS/2 and the BSDs (not FreeBSD, but the rest of the pack) are the only OSes I'm aware of that don't have a decent 1.2+ VM yet, but there are quite a few without a stable 1.4 VM (and I don't think 1.3 would give us too much, proxies, but what else?). 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system requirements) +0 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. OK. 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 few weeks. 8-) Stefan
RE: JDK 1.1 support
+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 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 its change in system requirements) 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. 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). -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
