Hi, On Sun, 26 Dec 2004, Marcel Ruff wrote: > Hi, > > for the next steps of xmlBlaster evolution we need some feedback. > First some basic issues. > > Please vote on the different topics if you have an opinion about > it or if your environment dictates it. > > The Xmas 1.0 xmlBlaster release is JDK 1.3 compatible on server side. > It will only be patched for bug fixes and will remain JDK 1.3 compatible. > Typical version numberings will be 1.01, 1.02. > > The new development will be on the main trunk and will lead to release 1.1 > > o JDK server side: > Which JDK should we support on server side, do we need support for > > - JDK 1.3 > - JDK 1.4 > - JDK 1.5 > > We would like to drop JDK 1.3 as JDK 1.4 offers SSL, logging, > scalable socket IO and many more goodies. > If we can drop JDK 1.4 support we can use the nice JDK 1.5 > features like built in JMX, concurrency and templates. > >
If there is no reasonable vote against upgrading, my vote is for JDK 1.5 for the further development on server side. > o JDK client side > If we change to the Java logging API we need for client side > at least JDK 1.4 as well > (Note we have a tiny J2ME and Applet based Java client lib as well > which won't use any advanced java constructs). > > - JDK 1.2 > - JDK 1.3 > - JDK 1.4 > - JDK 1.5 > > On client side I think about HP-UX 10.20 which has no support for JDK 1.3 afaik. Or there might be some constraints with some proprietary ORB i.e. Visibroker. So running a ClientLib with JDK 1.2 or 1.3 should still be considered IMHO. If it is not too much effort, we could think about two versions of client libs per release. > o Logging API > If we change to JDK 1.4 we should/could use > JDK1.4's java.util.logging framework. This will be the standard in future > as it is delivered with the JDK. This might not be happen as I see lots of projects using log4j as well. > To be more open there are Apache's logging interfaces > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/ > Which logging should we use? > > - Keep existing xmlBlaster logging interface? > - Jakarta commons logging Interfaces? > - JDK 1.4 java.util.logging? > - Other approach (http://java-source.net/open-source/logging ...)? My vote goes for JCL if we change something. Since JCL provides thin-wrapper Log implementations for other logging tools, including Log4J. At least on client side we should think to be open or configurable to meet the users logging system more easy. > > > o JMX > Using JDK 1.5 will enable for us simple JMX support > Is this reason enough to go to JDK 1.5 or should we > use third party JMX libraries, which do you recommend? It gives us at least the chance to choose ;-) > >Please post your opinions, > >Marcel > >-- >http://www.xmlBlaster.org > just my two EuroCents. kind regards Heinrich -- http://www.xmlBlaster.org
