Hi Robert, I'm very limited in free time atm. So I think the descision should be made by the active developers. Anyway I think we should drop java 1.4 support at all. I see no real reason to support such old / outdated jvm.
Cheers, Norman 2008/11/2 Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > i'm increasingly convinced that the 3.0 codebase contains some > compelling reasons to upgrade. i think it's important to offer an > upgrade path for existing installations including retaining 1.4 JVM > support. this means preserving 1.4 compatibility in the API and > library layers and in any functions that existing in james 2. > > i quite fancy experimenting with some stuff (for example OpenJPA) that > requires java 5. IIRC there are already some optional modules which > require a 1.5 JVM but i'd like to use a more regular system. i propose > using module names to allow java5 in the function layer. for example, > openjpa-java5 would act like openjpa-function but would only be > compiled when a 1.5 JVM is used. > > any objections? > > going forward, this will result in the issue that - given the current > build - new features would only be available atfer downloading the > source and compiling with a 1.5 JVM. i would like to suggest the > following long term strategy: we use the same module system but ship > the phoenix built under 1.4 (without new features) and spring built > under 1.5 (with the new features). > > opinions? > > - robert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
