On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
seems like we have a reasonable consensus on upgrading the minimum java version for 3.0 to 1.5 any objections? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
