I don't have much problem with switching to jdk1.7. My eclipse is running with jdk1.7 as the builder and it can't find any problems in cs code. The main question I think will come from the Linux variants. Are all of them shipping with jdk1.7 now?
--Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Trippie [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hugo Trippaers > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 5:10 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Java 7, tomcat 7 and further upgrades > > Hey all, > > Sorry for the threadomancy, but the discussion have become relevant again > with the current issues with the libvirt library. Of course this could also be > solved by updating the libvirt library with a jdk6 version. Still it might be > good > to revisit this topic. > > It appears not to be possible to switch code style to 1.7 and produce a 1.6 > compatible binary. I remember this working with olders versions, but didn't > dig to much into this. > > So the new question in this thread will be, should we switch CloudStack to > jdk 1.7? > > Cheers, > > Hugo > > On Jul 1, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:18:40PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > >> All, > >> > >> I am +1 for Java7. However, I would like to propose ridding > >> ourselves of Tomcat entirely and embedding a network stack such as > >> Netty (http://netty.io) with a servlet bridge. We have one JSP in > >> the system that generates JSON resources. It could be easily > >> eliminated with a simple servlet that generates JSON from a > >> ResourceBundle. Outside of this JSP. I don't see any other > >> requirements for a JEE container besides hosting a servlet. We would > >> gain a far simpler, self-contained deployment model (a single jar). > >> Additionally, we would gain greater control of the startup and > >> shutdown lifecycle, as well as, threading dynamics. If there is > >> interest in this approach, I have thoughts on how to achieve this > >> embedding and create a lightweight daemon framework that could be > >> used for all CloudStack daemons. > >> > >> As an aside, I also think we should replace our hand-rolled NIO code > >> with Netty as well. > >> > > > > John - could you break this and other thoughts down a little more in > > what's involved? Perhaps into its own thread. I don't know Netty. And > > my J2EE is shaky at best. > > > > It's been a previous wish on this list to have the packaging of > > cloudstack into a single easily deployable war instead of all the > > complicated packaging we do. So I'd like to hear more of that and > > other issues you describe. > > > > -- > > Prasanna., > > > > ------------------------ > > Powered by BigRock.com > >
