Bernd Fondermann wrote:
On 12/19/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joachim Draeger wrote:
> We should be careful with sun specific solutions until we clearly
> declare sun jvm as requirement.
I would not declare that. Our mission is to provide a pure-Java mail
server. For me, this implies to have the goal of make it running
anywhere -- even if currently, it is not.
I agree on the "pure" write once run everywhere, but maybe it will
happen that we know it doesn't work everywhere (right now).
What I propose in practice is to define a set of platform to be checked
in order to approve a release.
As an example I consider compatibility with Java 6 an higher priority
than compatibility with JRockit or IBM jvm or gnu gcj+classpath.
I remember I tried James 2.3.0 also with gnu-gcj+classpath and it didn't
work. IIRC we use (javamail 1.4 does) a Socket constructor that is not
implemented by classpath.
I think it is better to declare a jvm compatibility limitation than
avoid releasing at all.
As an example:
- I think that for next-major compatibility with java 6 should be
considered (if not too difficult, required).
- I instead think that for 2.3.1 this issue could be ignored.
I know James Server 2.3.0 works on Sun Java 1.4 and 5. This is valid for
SSL and SMIME stuff too, not sure about the JMX stuff (maybe Bernd can
make a summary of his knowledge aboud this).
Same with JMX.
Bernd
Thank you,
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
