If there is a way to move forward and keep River compatible with Java 1.5, that would be ideal. We obviously cannot just stand still even though Java RTS might for a time. It is hard to tell at this stage what is happening because of the Oracle purchase of Sun and speculation is not a thing I like to do. However, we do know that Java RTS is the first Java Community Process, i.e. literally No. 1, and I cannot believe that Java would abandon this effort to the dustbin of history. That would not bode well for Java as a platform.
MG On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote: > If you're fine with River 2.1.1 then you have a platform which you can move > forward with right? That release is baselined at Java 1.4. > > As River moves forward with it's roadmap, changing the com.sun namespace to > org.apache, and possibly moving to Java 1.6, you would still have a platform > (2.1.1) that you could use. > > As RTJ (hopefully) moves forward with eventual 1.6+ interoperability at that > point you could move to River, including product changes to account for the > namespace change as well. > > Does that suffice? > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 337PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote: > >> More on this later, but I am certainly aware that River cannot stay stagnant >> at Java 1.5. We need to be realistic but the real-time Java is going to >> "hit" in the near term, I think. There might need to be options and tracks >> and whatever makes sense to River. >> >> MG >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 127PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps this will help: on the generic question of going to Java 1.6, and >>>> my plea not to do it. >>>> >>>> http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/33475 >>> >>> Michael, >>> >>> Thanks for the link. You may also find more information here: >>> http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/realtime/faq.jsp >>> >>> One thing on this topic that I am curious about is what Oracle's plan is >>> for RTJ. We certainly cant answer that in this forum. But... will they keep >>> it? If so, and if they are given a large enough business opportunity for >>> it's use, will they move towards supporting 1.6? While this is a very >>> interesting and compelling technical use of River, is it enough to prohibit >>> River moving to 1.6 and beyond? >>> >>> Just asking ... >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Dennis >>> >>> >> >> Michael McGrady >> Chief Architect >> Topia Technology, Inc. >> Cel 1.253.720.3365 >> Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037 >> [email protected] >> >> >> > Michael McGrady Chief Architect Topia Technology, Inc. Cel 1.253.720.3365 Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037 [email protected]
