We are also still using JDK1.4.
We"ll probably upgrade to Java 6 next year after we have solved some
incompatibilities between JDK1.4 and JDK6
Maarten
- Original Message
From: Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@ant.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:02:40 PM
Subjec
Hi,
Ivy-2.0.0-RC1 is out for some time now. What will be the next step?
- create a new RC2 release containing some (or all) of the bugfixes which have
been committed into SVN trunk and maybe some open issues which aren't fixed yet
- create a 2.0.0 final release based on RC1
I'm in favor for a n
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Jeffrey E. Care <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think moving to 1.4 is fine; I'm actually kind of surprised that
> we've even go that low. Do we have a sense that people are still out
> there in the wild using JDK 1.4?
I'm one of them myself, stuck with a customer who has fina
> From: Jeffrey E Care [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:32 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Java version required for trunk
>
> I think moving to 1.4 is fine; I'm actually kind of surprised that
> we've
> even go that low. Do we have a sense that people ar
>Do we have a sense that people are still out
>there in the wild using JDK 1.4?
Yes - in my project we are using Fujitsu-Siemens BeanTA application
server
(I dont know the exact version), which relies on Java 1.4. :-(
(EJB 2.0 .)
Jan
Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/15/2008 12:31:21 AM:
> [snip]
>
> There has been some discussion about dropping support for Java 1.3 in
> trunk. One of the aguments against it was that 1.4 doesn't offer
> anything new and going from 1.3 to Java5 was too big a step.
>
> Given that
Concerning the mapping, did you have thought to map one ivy module to
multiple maven poms. I think that if you want to keep the same
richness, when you have an ivy file with multiple "functional"
configurations, you should generate multiple poms, one for each
"functional" configuration that you ha
