Re: Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Clay Leeds]

On Jan 29, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Michael Reiche wrote:
On man, 2004-01-26 at 14:08, Chris Bowditch wrote:
Anyone who has worked in a large organisation will know: it is very
difficult to upgrade the OS on a server (which is a pre-requiste for
later JDKs on some platforms). Large companies tend to have request
forms/processes just to copy a single file onto large
servers/mainframes, let alone upgrading OS/JDKs.
AIX is one example. To get Java 1.4 on AIX you need at least AIX 5.1.
And whats worse is that it also requires a certain level of hardware
(Common Hardware Reference Platform). A lot of currently active
AIX-servers do not meet this requirement, including our development
server at work :-(
Chris
--
/Reiche
As mentioned previously, we have an in-house AIX box which we probably 
won't be able to upgrade. It was built to match the servers used by our 
clients. Fortunately, fop-0.20.4 works on those systems, due to 
relatively minimal system requirements  (although we use fop-0.20.5 
elsewhere, we haven't updated FOP on that box because it works!). If 
the requirements for fop-1.0 *require* Java 1.4, that system (IBM Java 
1.3) will probably be stuck at fop-0.20.4 or .5 for the foreseeable 
future.

Web Maestro Clay

Re: Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Dalibor Topic]

Michael Reiche wrote:
On man, 2004-01-26 at 14:08, Chris Bowditch wrote:


Anyone who has worked in a large organisation will know: it is very 
difficult to upgrade the OS on a server (which is a pre-requiste for 
later JDKs on some platforms). Large companies tend to have request 
forms/processes just to copy a single file onto large 
servers/mainframes, let alone upgrading OS/JDKs.



AIX is one example. To get Java 1.4 on AIX you need at least AIX 5.1.
And whats worse is that it also requires a certain level of hardware
(Common Hardware Reference Platform). A lot of currently active
AIX-servers do not meet this requirement, including our development
server at work :-(
I guess that's one of the areas where looking into what free runtimes 
can offer, as long as your needs are constrained to the (ever-growing) 
subset of 1.4 covered by them, might be interesting.

Essentially, as soon as a free runtime covers all of FOP's needs, you 
automatically have another option, i.e. to switch to a free runtime.

cheers,
dalibor topic

Re: Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Michael Reiche]

On man, 2004-01-26 at 14:08, Chris Bowditch wrote:

> Anyone who has worked in a large organisation will know: it is very 
> difficult to upgrade the OS on a server (which is a pre-requiste for 
> later JDKs on some platforms). Large companies tend to have request 
> forms/processes just to copy a single file onto large 
> servers/mainframes, let alone upgrading OS/JDKs.
> 

AIX is one example. To get Java 1.4 on AIX you need at least AIX 5.1.
And whats worse is that it also requires a certain level of hardware
(Common Hardware Reference Platform). A lot of currently active
AIX-servers do not meet this requirement, including our development
server at work :-(

> Chris
-- 
/Reiche

Re: Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Chris Bowditch]

Peter B. West wrote:



The 0.20 series is supported on 1.3, so an important question is: what 
is the expected timeframe for availability of 1.4 for those users who 
are currently restricted to 1.3?  Vendors should be able to provide 
their users with some indication of this.  We should at least ask the 
question in any survey of users.  An ancillary question is: what is the 
user's expected timeframe for migration?
I think this is one of the key factors in deciding. It is very tempting 
to make the decision based on new APIs etc that make our lives easier, 
but make the lifes of our users much harder.

Anyone who has worked in a large organisation will know: it is very 
difficult to upgrade the OS on a server (which is a pre-requiste for 
later JDKs on some platforms). Large companies tend to have request 
forms/processes just to copy a single file onto large 
servers/mainframes, let alone upgrading OS/JDKs.

Chris

Re: Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Glen Mazza]

I suspect we'll be OK with 1.4; and also the graphics
bugs I think Joerg was mentioning below with 1.3 makes
that latter probably not much of an option going into
2005.

Glen


--- "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> > Here's the team's comments so far on this topic:
> > 
> > Chris:
> >
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107330434824865&w=2
> > 
> > Peter West:
> >
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107334589414161&w=2
> > 
> > Glen:
> >
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107334968118783&w=2
> > 
> > Web Maestro Clay and John Austin:
> >
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107336350330714&w=2
> > 
> > Chris 2:
> >
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107338058309642&w=2
> > 
> > Web Maestro Clay 2:
> >
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107339978229070&w=2
> > 
> > Joerg:
> >
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107341756423664&w=2
> > 
> > Peter West 2:
> >
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107353819024636&w=2
> > 
> > Glen
> > 
> > 
> > --- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 
> >>There was a thread recently which brought up that
> >>FOP HEAD currently
> >>doesn't compile under JDK 1.3. IMO this is an
> >>important point and a
> >>change of policy needs a community decision (vote)
> >>and a susequent
> >>documentation update. Since we should respect our
> >>customers a new
> >>opinion poll before the vote would be appropriate.
> >>
> >>Does anyone know of a good and up-to-date list of
> >>platforms and the JDK
> >>versions they support? I haven't found one. Sun's
> >>isn't ready, yet:
> >>http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/ports.html
> 
> Another point of interest is that 1.5 is available
> in beta releases. 
> 1.5 contains changes to the language, the only ones
> since 1.1, IIUC.  I 
> suspect that any vendor who takes Java seriously
> will port 1.5 as a 
> matter of urgency.  IBM e.g., has 1.3 and 1.4 for
> AIX and z/OS (what 
> level of 1.4 I am not sure.)  Linux/390 also has
> 1.4.
> 
> We're talking about a product (1.0) without a
> definite release date, but 
> unlikely before late 2004.  I hope to have a very
> limited functionality 
> available in alt-design by mid-year.  In any case, I
> expect that by the 
> time anyone is using alt-design in anger, 1.4 will
> not be a problem.
> 
> The 0.20 series is supported on 1.3, so an important
> question is: what 
> is the expected timeframe for availability of 1.4
> for those users who 
> are currently restricted to 1.3?  Vendors should be
> able to provide 
> their users with some indication of this.  We should
> at least ask the 
> question in any survey of users.  An ancillary
> question is: what is the 
> user's expected timeframe for migration?
> 
> Peter
> -- 
> Peter B. West
> 
> 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

Re: Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Peter B. West]

Glen Mazza wrote:
Here's the team's comments so far on this topic:

Chris:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107330434824865&w=2
Peter West:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107334589414161&w=2
Glen:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107334968118783&w=2
Web Maestro Clay and John Austin:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107336350330714&w=2
Chris 2:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107338058309642&w=2
Web Maestro Clay 2:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107339978229070&w=2
Joerg:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107341756423664&w=2
Peter West 2:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107353819024636&w=2
Glen

--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

There was a thread recently which brought up that
FOP HEAD currently
doesn't compile under JDK 1.3. IMO this is an
important point and a
change of policy needs a community decision (vote)
and a susequent
documentation update. Since we should respect our
customers a new
opinion poll before the vote would be appropriate.
Does anyone know of a good and up-to-date list of
platforms and the JDK
versions they support? I haven't found one. Sun's
isn't ready, yet:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/ports.html
Another point of interest is that 1.5 is available in beta releases. 
1.5 contains changes to the language, the only ones since 1.1, IIUC.  I 
suspect that any vendor who takes Java seriously will port 1.5 as a 
matter of urgency.  IBM e.g., has 1.3 and 1.4 for AIX and z/OS (what 
level of 1.4 I am not sure.)  Linux/390 also has 1.4.

We're talking about a product (1.0) without a definite release date, but 
unlikely before late 2004.  I hope to have a very limited functionality 
available in alt-design by mid-year.  In any case, I expect that by the 
time anyone is using alt-design in anger, 1.4 will not be a problem.

The 0.20 series is supported on 1.3, so an important question is: what 
is the expected timeframe for availability of 1.4 for those users who 
are currently restricted to 1.3?  Vendors should be able to provide 
their users with some indication of this.  We should at least ask the 
question in any survey of users.  An ancillary question is: what is the 
user's expected timeframe for migration?

Peter
--
Peter B. West 

Re: Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Dalibor Topic]

Hi Glen,

Glen Mazza wrote:
Here's the team's comments so far on this topic:
On a somewhat related side note, most of those features asked for by the 
 fop team from jdk 1.4 (logging, prefs, new util classes) exist in free 
runtimes (kaffe, gcj, sablevm, ...) already. The major blocker on 
running all of fop on free runtimes is the need to use non-distributable 
code like jimi for some features, and the state of java2d support on 
free runtimes (in the works, I plan to merge in agile2d into kaffe for a 
speedy opengl based java2d implementation, and there is work on a 
cairo/gtk+ based java2d implementation in GNU Classpath).

Given that the free runtimes are quite widely ported, to even rather 
obscure platforms (arm-acorn or superh-linux [1], anyone?), and are 
catching up quite quickly[2], I hope the issue of 'does a vendor support 
java 1.4 on some platform' is going to be moot in a year or two, since 
you may be able to simply use [3] gcj/gij/kaffe/sablevm on your platform 
of choice to satisfy your customer's needs.

cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] Kaffe has more than 50 platforms in CVS and a few more to be merged 
in ;)
[2] http://www.kaffe.org/~robilad/loc.png ;)
[3] Depending on developers actively maintaining these runtimes there, 
of course ;)

Re: Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Glen Mazza]

Here's the team's comments so far on this topic:

Chris:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107330434824865&w=2

Peter West:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107334589414161&w=2

Glen:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107334968118783&w=2

Web Maestro Clay and John Austin:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107336350330714&w=2

Chris 2:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107338058309642&w=2

Web Maestro Clay 2:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107339978229070&w=2

Joerg:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107341756423664&w=2

Peter West 2:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107353819024636&w=2

Glen


--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was a thread recently which brought up that
> FOP HEAD currently
> doesn't compile under JDK 1.3. IMO this is an
> important point and a
> change of policy needs a community decision (vote)
> and a susequent
> documentation update. Since we should respect our
> customers a new
> opinion poll before the vote would be appropriate.
> 
> Does anyone know of a good and up-to-date list of
> platforms and the JDK
> versions they support? I haven't found one. Sun's
> isn't ready, yet:
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/ports.html
> 
> Jeremias Maerki
> 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

Changing policy on minimum JDK requirements for HEAD

[Jeremias Maerki]

There was a thread recently which brought up that FOP HEAD currently
doesn't compile under JDK 1.3. IMO this is an important point and a
change of policy needs a community decision (vote) and a susequent
documentation update. Since we should respect our customers a new
opinion poll before the vote would be appropriate.

Does anyone know of a good and up-to-date list of platforms and the JDK
versions they support? I haven't found one. Sun's isn't ready, yet:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/ports.html

Jeremias Maerki