RE: JDK 1.1 support
Hi! > I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on > the following > > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be > clearly documented +1 Even for 1.5.x beeing the last JDK 1.1 release. We can start 1.2+ refactoring (like using collections) in 1.6 and continue in furure releases IMHO! > 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about > leap frogging to later versions?) +1 1.2+ is fine! 1.3 brought not enough efforts and 1.4 brought to many changes... Additionally it is still not commonly used! > 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system > requirements) +-0 I do not feel comfortable with the rev number 2.0... Probably because of the discussions about 2 years ago... > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. +1! Preserve the efforts, but dump the annotations! Just my 2 EURuro-cents ;) Chris See you on CeBIT!
Re: JDK 1.1 support
Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Most likely a "fix" will be more introspection magic... > > Not in this case. The code that is JDK 1.2 dependent in Diagnostics > can be replaced by 1.1 code without too much pain (it can be stolen > from the JUnit task, for example). Maybe in this case - but more code will probably be added and very likely more compat tricks will be needed. If we just drop 1.1 support - we can clean up instead of adding more. Costin
Re: JDK 1.1 support
At 03:28 PM 3/13/2003, Conor MacNeill wrote: I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented +1 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to later versions?) I don't know the stats on which JDKs are still in use, so it is a little hard to talk sensibly about this. We don't know how much pain we are inflicting on people by insisting they upgrade in order to use the latest Ant. But here are my suspicions: JDK 1.4 - This is wildly different from 1.3, so people are being cautious about upgrading to it. We would leave many people in the dust if we adopted this one as the standard. JDK 1.3 - Since this is so similar to 1.2, I think most people have moved to it already. But there will still be a significant number of people who haven't bothered upgrading yet. JDK 1.2 - I would guess that there are still a number of people, particularly those running older software that don't want to pay for upgrades, who are still using this JDK. JDK 1.1 - apart from people running applets in IE, I doubt that this is much in use any more. We lose the large installed base from Windows, but that has never really been our "market" anyway. Those are the costs of each. Then there are the benefits. Clearly going to JDK 1.2 is such a win over JDK 1.1 that doing so is a no brainer. JDK 1.4 would also give us much more functionality. JDK 1.3 over JDK 1.2, however, doesn't seem to do much for us. So in considering moving up from each previous JDK, we have: Cost Benefit JDK 1.2 Low High JDK 1.3 MediumLow JDK 1.4 High High So going to JDK 1.2 is a good tradeoff, JDK 1.3 not such a good one, and JDK 1.4 is too expensive. I'd say stick with JDK 1.2. 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system requirements) Absolutely. 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. Just the website? What about the cruft in the code? I had thought that there was general agreement that once we went to Ant 2, we could finally drop some of the code kept in there for hysterical raisins. We could break some of the assumptions of custom task writers, provided the impact was minimal and well justified. And we could get rid of deprecated methods, classes, and tasks.
Re: JDK 1.1 support
- Original Message - From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following > > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented I would say 1.5.x so long as x is not frozen. IOW, if there are critical bugs that mandate a release through the 1.5 branch to work in environments that do not have the ability to run JDK 1.2, then we should be open to that. Should we even consider -target=1.1 or does the newer .class format help in any way? > 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to > later versions?) The most stable version of JDK 1.2 that the vendor provides. > 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system > requirements) ok. > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. Is adding more cruft to mark the old cruft as obsolete an option? ;-) > Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against JDK 1.1 for > a while now (due to diagnostics changes). > > -- > Conor MacNeill > Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/ > Cheers, Magesh ** * Dictionary: A place where success comes before work. * **
Re: JDK 1.1 support
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ? >> >> Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has >> a strong requirement of compiling against 1.1. > > And using ant1.5 won't be enough ? It will force me to use something different than CVS HEAD, which involves the incredible work of setting ANT_HOME differently 8-) > I assume we'll continue to support compiling with JDK1.1 compiler We will certainly do so. > ( it can be done using an exec if you don't trust the flags on > the new compilers ) is supposed to do just fine. Stefan
Re: JDK 1.1 support
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: >>> Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against >>> JDK 1.1 for a while now (due to diagnostics changes). >> >> But I've nagged Steve about it and promise to fix it during the >> next few weeks. 8-) > > Wouldn't you rather fix other things :-) ? am I not doing that anyway? 8-) > Most likely a "fix" will be more introspection magic... Not in this case. The code that is JDK 1.2 dependent in Diagnostics can be replaced by 1.1 code without too much pain (it can be stolen from the JUnit task, for example). Stefan
Re: JDK 1.1 support
Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ? > > Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has > a strong requirement of compiling against 1.1. And using ant1.5 won't be enough ? I assume we'll continue to support compiling with JDK1.1 compiler ( it can be done using an exec if you don't trust the flags on the new compilers ) >> Are any active committers that are willing to support 1.1 ? > > So far it has been me (and others) and I'm still willing to do so. Ok then. Costin
Re: JDK 1.1 support
Stefan Bodewig wrote: > Fine with me. > > I'd like to keep 1.6 compatible to JDK 1.1, though. When we make 1.2 > a requirement, we'd better start using collections and URLClassloader > consistently - and doing this for 1.6 would push 1.6 even further down > the timeline. There are 3 issues: 1. Supporting JDK1.1 - that takes pain and effort and introduces ugly constructs. Droping support for 1.1 ( since almost nobody is actually supporting it or using it ) will reduce the timeline. 2. Using URLClassload imediately will simplify a lot of code and probably make ant more stable. 3. A full scale transition to 1.2 - i.e. using collections everywhere, etc - is not required and we can do it gradually, during the next 2-3 releases. Use JDK1.2 where it makes sense and simplifies things ( like removing the introspections that are hard to maintain ), but we don't need to make gratuituous changes. >> Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against >> JDK 1.1 for a while now (due to diagnostics changes). > > But I've nagged Steve about it and promise to fix it during the next > few weeks. 8-) Wouldn't you rather fix other things :-) ? Most likely a "fix" will be more introspection magic... Costin
Re: JDK 1.1 support
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ? Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has a strong requirement of compiling against 1.1. > Are any active committers that are willing to support 1.1 ? So far it has been me (and others) and I'm still willing to do so. Stefan
Re: JDK 1.1 support
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly > documented Fine with me. I'd like to keep 1.6 compatible to JDK 1.1, though. When we make 1.2 a requirement, we'd better start using collections and URLClassloader consistently - and doing this for 1.6 would push 1.6 even further down the timeline. > 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap > frogging to later versions?) 1.2 OS/2 and the BSDs (not FreeBSD, but the rest of the pack) are the only OSes I'm aware of that don't have a decent 1.2+ VM yet, but there are quite a few without a stable 1.4 VM (and I don't think 1.3 would give us too much, proxies, but what else?). > 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system > requirements) +0 > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. OK. > Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against > JDK 1.1 for a while now (due to diagnostics changes). But I've nagged Steve about it and promise to fix it during the next few weeks. 8-) Stefan
Re: JDK 1.1 support
Steve Loughran wrote: - Original Message - From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:53 Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support Then let's figure out if we shouldn't drop JDK1.1 now. I think moving to 1.2+ is a great idea but would like to see support for compiling classes with JDK 1.1 still there. So ant itself runs under 1.2+ but I can somehow compile an applet class under a 1.1 compiler - to double check that I haven't used something that will run in IE 4/5 with no plug-ins. This might be already catered for using the extJavac property of or using the task - not sure. Paul.
Re: JDK 1.1 support
Adam Murdoch wrote: > It would also be a perfect time for a bit of selective > backwards-compatibility breaking at the code level: eg sort out the > classloader heirarchy, ditch deprecated methods, separate the core into > public api and private internals, split up project's responsibilities, > separate parsing and execution, Not so fast :-) Cool down. Costin
Re: JDK 1.1 support
Steve Loughran wrote: >> I'm +1 to maintaining support for 1.1 if at least one committer is >> willing to volunteer to support it ( and does it ). > > 1. what do we gain from dropping 1.1 support at this stage in ant1.6? Few things. Using URLClassLoader would simplify a lot of code - to me that's the most important point. A lot of the hacks and introspection tricks we do may also be cleaned up. That results in easier maintainance. The point is that nobody seems to be willing to maintain the 1.1 code. Are you ? To reverse it - if you have any good reason for keeping 1.1 support ( or any reason at all ) - then we should keep 1.1. I used to be very strong in maintaining 1.1 support in tomcat - and the reason at that time was that 1.2 was not available on many platforms. GCJ and Kaffe are now almost fully 1.2 - and they cover all imaginable platforms. The only place ant won't be able to run is inside MSIE. > 2. the advantage of announcing that ant1.6 is the last java1.1 version is > the announcement: it gives people time to get used to the idea. If no ant committer is willing to support Java1.1 ( I'm not asking for 3 - just one person that is well motivated ) - then I don't see how we can maintain that support. Costin
Re: JDK 1.1 support
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 01:02 pm, Steve Loughran wrote: > > Maybe we should ask the user community, not the dev mailing list. > Good idea - done. -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
Re: JDK 1.1 support
- Original Message - From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:53 Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support > Then let's figure out if we shouldn't drop JDK1.1 now. > > Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ? Are any active committers > that are willing to support 1.1 ? It seems pretty obvious that most of us > don't - so it may be better to accept the fact. > > I'm +1 to maintaining support for 1.1 if at least one committer is willing > to volunteer to support it ( and does it ). 1. what do we gain from dropping 1.1 support at this stage in ant1.6? 2. the advantage of announcing that ant1.6 is the last java1.1 version is the announcement: it gives people time to get used to the idea. Maybe we should ask the user community, not the dev mailing list.
Re: JDK 1.1 support
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:28 pm, Conor MacNeill wrote: > I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following > > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly > documented +1 for ditching JDK 1.1. Presumably we would still support compilation with an external 1.1 javac? > 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging > to later versions?) I imagine jdk 1.2 would have everything that the ant core needs. Anything that needs the newer stuff could probably be packed up into optional tasks (or better yet, into antlibs that can declare dependencies on the jdk version in their descriptor). The best approach might be to start with 1.2 and see how we go. > 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system > requirements) +1 It would also be a perfect time for a bit of selective backwards-compatibility breaking at the code level: eg sort out the classloader heirarchy, ditch deprecated methods, separate the core into public api and private internals, split up project's responsibilities, separate parsing and execution, Not the rewrite-from-scratch that ant2 became. Just a few (relatively) easy wins at the expense of some broken tasks. > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. +1 -- Adam
Re: JDK 1.1 support
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:53 am, Costin Manolache wrote: > Conor MacNeill wrote: > > I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the > > following > > > > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly > > documented > > +1 > ( I would be +1 on making ant1.5 the last JDK1.1 release :-) > 1.5 could be the last JDK 1.1 release. I'm cool with that. Let's see what other opinions surface. I will propose a vote in a day or two if there is broad agreement. > > My strong prefference would be to also provide support for Kaffe and other > VMs ( all are based on Classpath project - so it's the same thing ). > They have most of JDK1.3 stuff - but not everything. > > I think it is well worth it, GCJ and Kaffe supports a lot of platforms. No problems. > > > 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system > > requirements) > > +0 > I don't agree that every change in requirements requires a change in > the major version number ( but maybe I missed some rules ). No, we would not have to bump the major version num. -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
Re: JDK 1.1 support
Conor MacNeill wrote: > I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the > following > > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly > documented +1 ( I would be +1 on making ant1.5 the last JDK1.1 release :-) > 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging > to later versions?) +1 My strong prefference would be to also provide support for Kaffe and other VMs ( all are based on Classpath project - so it's the same thing ). They have most of JDK1.3 stuff - but not everything. I think it is well worth it, GCJ and Kaffe supports a lot of platforms. > 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system > requirements) +0 I don't agree that every change in requirements requires a change in the major version number ( but maybe I missed some rules ). But I don't see a problem with changing the name to whatever we want. My only concern is to make it clear that ant2.0 will be a simple upgrade from ant1.6 - i.e. no unjustified backward uncompatibilities. IMHO major version changes should be done when the API is changed in backward incompatible ways. Let's discuss the name of the post 1.6 release after 1.6 is done. > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. +1 > Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against JDK 1.1 > for a while now (due to diagnostics changes). Then let's figure out if we shouldn't drop JDK1.1 now. Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ? Are any active committers that are willing to support 1.1 ? It seems pretty obvious that most of us don't - so it may be better to accept the fact. I'm +1 to maintaining support for 1.1 if at least one committer is willing to volunteer to support it ( and does it ). Costin
Re: JDK 1.1 support
- Original Message - From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:10 Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support > > > > > yes, that was my fault, wasnt it. File a bug against me :) > > > > :-) > I was discussing with someone the concept of having bugrep defects against people. bug, latest version: steve used be nice to me, but since last week he has been rude. "WONTFIX" ...
Re: JDK 1.1 support
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:55 am, Steve Loughran wrote: > From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. > > I think it should be preserved. > Some it is still interesting and worth keeping. By cruft I mean statements like "We are currently hashing out design details for Ant2" > > yes, that was my fault, wasnt it. File a bug against me :) > :-) -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
Re: JDK 1.1 support
- Original Message - From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 15:28 Subject: JDK 1.1 support > I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following > > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented +1. we spell it out and so nobody is surprised. > 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to > later versions?) There isnt enough in base 1.3 to force a switch. Now 14, there is enough there to merit the migration (assertions, much more in the base OS), but there is no way we could move to java1.4 only > > 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system > requirements) +1. It is time. > > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. I think it should be preserved. > > Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against JDK 1.1 for > a while now (due to diagnostics changes). yes, that was my fault, wasnt it. File a bug against me :)
RE: JDK 1.1 support
+1 -Original Message- From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: JDK 1.1 support I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to later versions?) 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system requirements) 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against JDK 1.1 for a while now (due to diagnostics changes). -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
RE: JDK 1.1 support
+1 -Original Message- From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: JDK 1.1 support I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to later versions?) 3. Name this subsequent release Ant 2.0 (due to its change in system requirements) 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website. Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against JDK 1.1 for a while now (due to diagnostics changes). -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
