Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-14 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Torsten Curdt wrote: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can come to a conclusion now. Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, but afaik the avalon framework requires JDK 1.3 anyway and the poll started recently showed, that most are us

RE: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Marcus Crafter wrote: > > > > > Personally, I don't see a real problem with this. If we use a > new container, > > we change the inheritance from ECM to whatever container we use. > > Well, I know we don't change container implementations all that > often :) so perhaps this is a bit a

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Marcus Crafter
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:35:41PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Marcus Crafter wrote, On 13/03/2003 12.12: > ... > > BTW - I was just about to email you a question regarding > > CocoonComponentManager. > > > > The current version extends from ECM, which hardcodes us to >

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Marcus Crafter
Hi Carsten! On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:33:41PM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Marcus Crafter wrote: > > > > BTW - I was just about to email you a question regarding > > CocoonComponentManager. > > > > The current version extends from ECM, which hardcodes us to > > that container

RE: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Marcus Crafter wrote: > > BTW - I was just about to email you a question regarding > CocoonComponentManager. > > The current version extends from ECM, which hardcodes us to > that container implementation - do you think it's possible to find > another way so we can all

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Marcus Crafter wrote, On 13/03/2003 12.12: ... BTW - I was just about to email you a question regarding CocoonComponentManager. The current version extends from ECM, which hardcodes us to that container implementation - do you think it's possible to find another way so we can alleviate thi

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Marcus Crafter
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:02:55PM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > I think it's the Excalibur component subproject that requires 1.3 > > now due to the use of Proxy classes inside of ECM. > > > Ah, yes, sorry - you're right. It's excalibur not the framework. No problem mate - w

RE: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Marcus Crafter wrote: > > Hi Carsten! > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:27:19AM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can > > come to a conclusion now. > > Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, > > but afaik the avalon framewor

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Marcus Crafter
Hi Carsten! On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:27:19AM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can > come to a conclusion now. > Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, > but afaik the avalon framework requires JDK 1.3 anyway and > the pol

Re: Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Torsten Curdt
Carsten Ziegeler wrote: We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can come to a conclusion now. Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, but afaik the avalon framework requires JDK 1.3 anyway and the poll started recently showed, that most are using 1.3 or 1.4. And 2.

Minimal JDK Version for 2.1

2003-03-13 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
We discussed this topic several times, so I think we can come to a conclusion now. Currently, we have JDK 1.2 as a minimal requirement for 2.1, but afaik the avalon framework requires JDK 1.3 anyway and the poll started recently showed, that most are using 1.3 or 1.4. And 2.1 is a new minor version