Those seem to me to be very good reasons to run with a 1.6 JVM if at all
possible. I think that should be our strong recommendation, for the
reasons you state.
Are there any negatives, other than not being able to use "Since 1.6"
API features in the River source code, to keeping the code 1.5
compatible, and compiling with 1.5? A 1.5 classfile can be used with a
1.5 or 1.6 JVM.
Patricia
Christopher Dolan wrote:
I would list bug fixes (specifically "no Thread.interrupt() classloader
corruption") or maybe performance enhancements as the major reason for
JDK 6 rather than newer features. Outside of Swing and JAXB, there
aren't very many compelling new features in JDK 6 that I'm aware of, and
certainly not many that River would care about.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Sim IJskes - QCG [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: JVM version policy Was: Re: Build failed in Hudson:
River-trunk-jdk1.5 #3
On 03-12-10 09:25, Jeff Ramsdale wrote:
Given the (significant) benefits of moving to 1.5 and the (relative)
lack of opposition, could we agree to:
1) do our little current release
2) graduate
3) do a new release with package renames and move to 1.5
4) revisit the roadmap to prioritize 1.6 and the more significant
changes we've been putting off
Excellent! In order to make it possible for the discussion to resume
it's full amplitude at a later stage i've got the following condensed
version of the discussion:
# Compatibility requirements
JDK | Reason
- | -
1.4 | CDC/BlueRay depends on it.
1.5 | RealTime Java (RTJ) depends on it.
6 | Newer features
I will document this on the website.
Gr. Sim
