I meant to say jsr-166y rather than nio 2. I am using jsr-310 (new date time) and jsr-166y (fork join framework) on jdk6. No, I'm not compiling them myself, the projects provide jdk6 compatible binary releases. I'm not using nio.2 on jdk6 and I don't think that works with jdk6.
The jsr-310 date time stuff is really excellent. It works well on jdk6, but obviously other jdk6 libraries like JDBC don't support it, so you have to do your own manual conversion. Also, third party libraries, like Google, provide their own custom Date Time library, since jsr-310 isn't officially out. It will be nice, when everything standardizes one common excellent library. The fork join framework is very fast: I wrote my own quicksort benchmarks. I was sure I could write more efficient multi-threading code, and I could not. However, it doesn't need other library support like a date/time library does, so there is not much advantage to a blessed jdk7 release over using the jdk6 release. On Sep 12, 6:44 pm, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > When you say using them on jdk6, are you compiling them yourself? > > Thanks, Paul. > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:57 AM, clay <claytonw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been using jsr-310 and nio2 on jdk6, but third party libraries > > won't support them until they are in a released jdk. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
