We're still using JDK 1.3. The issue also arises for small companies (like ours) who are providing solutions - where JAMES is a key component - to larger companiens. I agree with Aaron's point of view.
-shal Quoting Aaron Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Unfortunately, those of us who work for large companies don't have the > luxury of a viewpoint such as this. A company with a large IT > infrastructure is often not as quick on its feet as we would like it to > be. It can take years to upgrade to a new version of a software > product, depending on how important the move is perceived to be by those > at the top. > > As for running both JDK's on your servers, this is not as easy as it > sounds. Yes, it is technically easy - but getting JDK 1.4 onto an HP-UX > box means patching the OS to the recommended minimum level, which means > re-testing everything on that box, which means taking down a production > box, running all sorts of critical applications, for a good chunk of > time. Not something that is easy to get past the network ops team. > > I think that the best approach for now is to do as Steve and Vincenzo > suggest and aim to move to 1.4 for James 3.0. In addition to this, a > stream should be left open for development (or at least maintenance) of > James on 1.3.1. > > Cheers > > ADK > > > > > Randahl Fink Isaksen wrote: > > >To Daniel and Noel (and everyone else) > > > >We have moved on to 1.4. I do not really see how moving forward can be a > >problem; if people have applications which require a JDK 1.3 they can > >always run both a JDK 1.3 and a JDK 1.4 on their server, and have the > >old applications run on the 1.3 and James on the 1.4. > > > >Since James is an open source project dependant on volunteer developers, > >and since 1.4 has many helpful features, wouldn't it be best to provide > >the developers with the best platform possible? I think that giving the > >developers the best possible development environment is good for the > >productivity in any project. Unfortunately I myself is not a James > >developer, but I have been a 1.4 developer for a long time, and I for > >one would definitely not like to step back to 1.3. > > > > > >Randahl > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Daniel Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: 3. juli 2003 07:43 > >To: 'James Users List' > >Subject: RE: Anyone still using JDK 1.3? > > > >I think it is best to leave it still compatible to JDK 1.3.1 minimum... > > > >not everyone has moved to JDK 1.4 due to conflict with other > >applications... > > > > > >Regards, > >Daniel > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, 03 July, 2003 1:28 PM > >To: James-User Mailing List > >Subject: Anyone still using JDK 1.3? > > > > > >James still supports JDK 1.3, but lately we're wondering if anyone still > >cares. If you are still using JDK prior to JDK 1.4.0, please let us > >know. > > > > --- Noel > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
