On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:43, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> 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? > > IMHO this is an useless waste of time :-) > Let's drop Java 2 1.4 and declare java 5 as a requisite. > > Java 1.4 completed the EOL period 3 days ago: no one should seriusly use > java 2 1.4 in any internet exposed machine. > Unless we plan to include james in an applet or some old embedded device > (and I never read about this scenario in this lists) java 1.4 > compatibility is useless. > > Java 5 runtime already provides "an upgrade path for existing > installations" by smoothly running java 2 v1.4 code. This is true > expecially if you think that JAMES is run in its own virtual machine and > is not a component to be run inside old application servers. > > Once we'll have a working java5 release *if* many users will ask for a > java 1.4 solution they can help us figuring it out using > retroweaver/translator.
+1 For a major release, upgrading the required Java version is ok. Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
