Yep, I'm completely of your opinion belonging the 2.2.x JDK releases. But I think 2.3.x wouldn't be enough. I'm afraid that industry will demand feature releases of karaf for at least another year or two and a 2.3.x line for jdk6 will prevent us from doing feature releases based on jdk5; a 3.x line wouldn't.
2011/1/5 Jamie G. <[email protected]>: > Perhaps a 2.3.x line? Departing from JDK 1.5 support would represent > enough of a change IMHO to require some sort of higher version number > change. I'm not too much of a fan of having separate 2.2.x JDK 1.5+ > and JDK 1.6+ kits... would just lead to confusion in deployment and > debugging. > > 2011/1/4 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]>: >> Actually I think we should name it karaf-2.x.x, but otherwise yes. At >> least I would prefer this solution compared to a jdk6-branch since >> 3.0.0 will allow us more freedom from a logical point of view (IMHO) >> >> kind regards, >> andreas >> >> 2011/1/5 Jamie G. <[email protected]>: >>> So just to be clear, you are proposing we branch our current mainline >>> to 2.2.x and then have main become 3.0.x (which will JDK 1.6 going >>> forward)? >>> >>> >>> 2011/1/4 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]>: >>>> The problem is that in industry still many ppl use jdk1.5. What I >>>> would like is to branch off karaf-2.x.x and update karafs version to >>>> 3.0.0 in trunk. I think the mainlines we'll be identical enough to >>>> support both versions easily for at least another year or two (by >>>> simply cherry-picking commits from trunk to 2.2.x) and simply do not >>>> implement all features on both branches (e.g. KARAF-53 for 3.x.x >>>> only). >>>> >>>> kind regards, >>>> andreas >>>> >>>> 2011/1/4 Łukasz Dywicki <[email protected]>: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Some time ago I created issue KARAF-328 which is sticky card about JVM >>>>> version policy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Now I am a bit confused because I would like get rid XML parsing from >>>>> feature service and switch it to JAXB while working on KARAF-53. I know >>>>> that >>>>> build is made on JVM 1.5 and this change will broke capability with older >>>>> virtual machines. I wouldn't force anyone to upgrade but moving to new JVM >>>>> version can simplify our life a bit. :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note that CXF, ActiveMQ and Camel works with Java 1.5. We have JRE 1.5 and >>>>> JRE 1.6 profiles in jre.properties. From my point of view it is not a >>>>> problem to stay with 1.5 but if it make sense to stay with version which >>>>> is >>>>> supported only if you pay Oracle for? As another note - JVM 1.5 was >>>>> released >>>>> in May 2004 and it is 6 year old. What do you think about that? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Lukasz >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
