Christopher Ebert wrote: > It would be a barrier for those of us still on Microsoft's VM, > too. Don't know how many there are (or if someone knows a work-around?) > but it's still 1.1.x. If it's really just about the collection API
I believe there are still enough people on 1.1.x that it warrants we keep backwards compatibility for the time being. Sandy Gao wrote: > - We can't use new functionality provided by new JDK's (for example, > collection interfaces); and > - We have to sacrifice performance. Hashtable's and Vector's are used, > which are (painfully) synchronized. We don't sacrifice performance unless we actually use the Hashtable and Vector classes. The only time that I actually use these classes is for convenience in places where I know it is not a performance issue. For everything else, I write custom, non-synchronized collection classes. And noone has convinced me, yet, that *generic* collection *interfaces* are faster than *specific* collection *classes*. So, despite the little bit of extra code required, doing it myself is the way to get better performance when using collections. > We think it's time to move on to JDK 1.2. Anyone has any concerns about > it? I personally have made the switch to Java2 but I still wouldn't make the change and lock out all of the people who are stuck (through no fault of their own) on 1.1.x. And do we really need anything in Java2 for XML parsing? Collections is *not* on my list of required features, BTW. Perhaps weak references but that's pushing it, I think. -- Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
