Paulex Yang wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Paulex Yang wrote:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
I'm ok with that timeline. We probably need goals for "dotted"
releases also (like 5.1 where we can improve for example performance)
I'm not sure, but I thought we can only release 5.0_01 if Sun didn't
have 5.1?
Why not?
There is a version of the spec, and a version of the implementation,
which are different.
If so, I prefer to Harmony 1.0(SE 5.0 compatible), 1.1(SE 5.0 compatible
with performance enhancement) just like what Geronmo does, rather than
5.0, 5.1, which is confusing.
I think we should consider 5.0, 5.1 simply for marketing reasons and
clarity.
If I tell you that I'm running my program under "Harmony 5.1.2", you
know exactly what spec version of Java I'm using, so you don't have to
do the math to figure it out. Yeah, it's easy for 5, but once we have
7, that will have things like "Harmony 3.2.1" ?
I think it might make it easier for users.
geir
geir
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/11/27, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I noticed that I've said the following several times, and it's really
not for me to say, but for us to say.
Does anyone have a problem with the following "high-level" time line?
Mid 2007 : Java SE 5
End 2007 : Java SE 6 (meaning we have to start thinking about Java
SE 6
classlib changes...)
End 2008 : Java SE 7 (this really means "we'll do Java SE 7 when Sun
does Java SE 7...")
geir
