Re: Binaries for next releases
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: Le 8 oct. 05, à 19:43, Reinhard Poetz a écrit : ...For 2.1 I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. IMHO We should focus on 2.2 and make it stable as soon as possible Yes, let's make as little changes as possible to 2.1 and move on. Yupp. As soon as we have 2.2 we definitly want that users start with 2.2 and not with 2.1.x anymore. So having a binary release only for 2.2 might help with this as well :) Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, SN AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Binaries for next releases
Hi, On 10 Oct 2005, at 08:43, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: As soon as we have 2.2 we definitly want that users start with 2.2 and not with 2.1.x anymore. So having a binary release only for 2.2 might help with this as well :) Depends when we think 2.2 might be released (I mean full release, not milestone release). If we're talking about maybe a month, then I suppose it's not a problem. If we're talking about 6 months - well, do we really want to give a substandard user experience for that long? Andrew. -- Andrew Savory, Managing Director, Luminas Limited Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135 Web: http://www.luminas.co.uk/ Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/
Re: Binaries for next releases
Andrew Savory wrote: Hi, On 10 Oct 2005, at 08:43, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: As soon as we have 2.2 we definitly want that users start with 2.2 and not with 2.1.x anymore. So having a binary release only for 2.2 might help with this as well :) Depends when we think 2.2 might be released (I mean full release, not milestone release). If we're talking about maybe a month, then I suppose it's not a problem. If we're talking about 6 months - well, do we really want to give a substandard user experience for that long? Hehe, good question :) Now, noone knows when 2.2 final will be out, so it might be in two months or it might take another year if people might loose interest/energy. But I think our first milestone of 2.2 will be stable and a full replacement of 2.1.x, so we will recommend to prefer 2.2M1 over 2.1.8. The only thing missing might be some blocks handling etc. Now, I'm not against adding binary releases for 2.1.x *but* then someone has to do it - the build system has to be updated, we have to think about providing two binary releases one for jdk 1.3 one for jdk 1.4 and so on. If someone does the work on the build system, I'm happy to do the binary release then :) Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, SN AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Binaries for next releases
Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Now, I'm not against adding binary releases for 2.1.x *but* then someone has to do it - the build system has to be updated, we have to think about providing two binary releases one for jdk 1.3 one for jdk 1.4 and so on. If someone does the work on the build system, I'm happy to do the binary release then :) Have we planned to release 2 2.2M1 version for java 1.4.x and 1.5? Or this is not the case for cocoon 2.2? Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
Re: Binaries for next releases
Antonio Gallardo agallardo at agssa.net writes: Have we planned to release 2 2.2M1 version for java 1.4.x and 1.5? Is there any advantage of compiling with Java 1.5? Jörg
Re: Binaries for next releases
Joerg Heinicke wrote: Antonio Gallardo agallardo at agssa.net writes: Have we planned to release 2 2.2M1 version for java 1.4.x and 1.5? Is there any advantage of compiling with Java 1.5? I don't think so - just using 1.4 for compilation should be fine. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, SN AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Binaries for next releases
That is an interesting thought. It would be nice to be able to take advantage of generics, the enhanced for loop and autoboxing. But we need to allow running with JDK 1.4 so we could use retroweaver to allow that. Ralph Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Joerg Heinicke wrote: Antonio Gallardo agallardo at agssa.net writes: Have we planned to release 2 2.2M1 version for java 1.4.x and 1.5? Is there any advantage of compiling with Java 1.5? I don't think so - just using 1.4 for compilation should be fine. Carsten
Re: Binaries for next releases
Ralph Goers wrote: That is an interesting thought. It would be nice to be able to take advantage of generics, the enhanced for loop and autoboxing. But we need to allow running with JDK 1.4 so we could use retroweaver to allow that. Sounds really cool! I would love to be able to use Java 1.5. Have you any experience from using retroweaver (http://retroweaver.sourceforge.net/)? It has BSD license so we should be able to use it. /Daniel
Re: Binaries for next releases
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: Ralph Goers wrote: That is an interesting thought. It would be nice to be able to take advantage of generics, the enhanced for loop and autoboxing. But we need to allow running with JDK 1.4 so we could use retroweaver to allow that. Sounds really cool! I would love to be able to use Java 1.5. Have you any experience from using retroweaver (http://retroweaver.sourceforge.net/)? It has BSD license so we should be able to use it. /Daniel No, I have no direct experience with Retroweaver. When I was looking at workflow engines I came across PXE (http://pxe.fivesight.com/wiki/display/PXE/Home) which uses Retroweaver. Supposedly it works pretty good. BTW - I have seen references from various places that indicate simply running (not necessarily compiling) with Java 5 performs better than Java 1.4. If true users should be encouraged to do that whenever possible. Ralph
Re: Binaries for next releases
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote:
That is an interesting thought. It would be nice to be able to take
advantage of generics, the enhanced for loop and autoboxing. But we
need to allow running with JDK 1.4 so we could use retroweaver to
allow that.
Sounds really cool! I would love to be able to use Java 1.5. Have you
any experience from using retroweaver
(http://retroweaver.sourceforge.net/)? It has BSD license so we should
be able to use it.
TBH, I don't like these kind of experiments. On the one hand it's mostly a gut
feeling, on the other as long as I don't have the absolute need for it (= I
can't solve a problem without it) I wouldn't use it.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
Re: Binaries for next releases
Reinhard Poetz wrote: TBH, I don't like these kind of experiments. On the one hand it's mostly a gut feeling, on the other as long as I don't have the absolute need for it (= I can't solve a problem without it) I wouldn't use it. Certainly there is nothing in Java 5 that can't be coded around, but autoboxing, generics and the enhanced for statement simply make nicer code. Generics will obviously create better code since it is now possible to restrict collections to a single object type. Whether we do this now or not, it is certainly a viable way to move to Java 5 in the future while maintaining compatibility with JDK 1.4. Once we are shipping binaries again it should not matter if Cocoon must be compiled with Java 5. Ralph
Re: Binaries for next releases
Le 8 oct. 05, à 19:43, Reinhard Poetz a écrit : ...For 2.1 I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. IMHO We should focus on 2.2 and make it stable as soon as possible Yes, let's make as little changes as possible to 2.1 and move on. -Bertrand
