A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
WDYT?
I would be cautiously in favour of this as long as no-one knows of any
real situations where 1.4 is the newest available version.
depending on whether this proposal
Danny Angus wrote:
A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
WDYT?
I would be cautiously in favour of this as long as no-one knows of any
real situations where 1.4 is the newest available version.
depending on wh
+1
As soon as we drop backward compatiblity.
bye
Norman
Danny Angus schrieb:
> A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
> look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
>
> WDYT?
>
> I would be cautiously in favour of this as long as no-one knows of any
> real
We should continue to make sure James is running with Java versions > 1.4
And I am +1 for a future version of the mailet engine to require Java 5.
About requiring Java 5 for the Server, I don't know. Why should the
Server require Java 5 if it really does not use any J5 specifics and
only one of it
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
We should continue to make sure James is running with Java versions > 1.4
And I am +1 for a future version of the mailet engine to require Java 5.
About requiring Java 5 for the Server, I don't know. Why should the
Server require Java 5 if it really does not use any J5 spe
On 1/8/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> We should continue to make sure James is running with Java versions > 1.4
> And I am +1 for a future version of the mailet engine to require Java 5.
> About requiring Java 5 for the Server, I don't know. Why should th
On 1/8/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know how many users was on Jdk 1.3 for outdated j2ee servers
1 year after java 5 has been released?
We were. I don't know of others.
d.
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
On 1/8/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
+1
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PRO
> A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
> look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
For what? Are we going to do this for trunk therefore meaning that the only
releasable code will require JSE 5, since any meaningful changes to anything
other than trunk
On 1/12/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A discussion on the Mailet-api list about annotations has started to
> look at the possibility of requiring java 5 for James.
For what? Are we going to do this for trunk therefore meaning that the only
releasable code will require JSE 5,
On 1/13/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i suspect that given good modularization, this choice could be made on
a per-component basis whilst the core remained lowest common
denominator JVM. james would then still run on older JVMs with small
changes to the configuration files
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i suspect that given good modularization, this choice could be made on
> a per-component basis whilst the core remained lowest common
> denominator JVM. james would then still run on older JVMs with small
> changes to the configuration files.
+1 That was the propos
On 1/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i suspect that given good modularization, this choice could be made on
> a per-component basis whilst the core remained lowest common
> denominator JVM. james would then still run on older JVMs with small
> cha
13 matches
Mail list logo
