Yeah, we don't have any concerned 1.3 users. Thanks everybody for the
feedback. I won't make any changes for another couple of days, but
this is very encouraging.
Andrus
On Sep 29, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
> I'm not feeling a lot of Java 1.3.x love out there ... :-)
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Stuart [mailto:nicholas.stuar..mail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 8:40 AM
> To: cayenne-use..bjectstyle.org
> Subject: Re: Poll: JDK 1.3 support
>
>
> +1
>
> On 9/28/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This discussion started on cayenne-devel, but as Mike Kienenberger
>> pointed out, this is of interest to all users, so I am transferring
>> it here. So far the consensus was that Cayenne 1.1.x should maintain
>> JDK 1.3 compatibility for as long as needed, while 1.2 should go JDK
>> 1.4 all the way.
>>
>> The decision has not been made yet. Any comments?
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>
>>> From: Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>>> Date: September 28, 2005 3:41:39 PM EDT
>>> To: Cayenne Devel <cayenne-deve..bjectstyle.org>
>>> Subject: Poll: JDK 1.3 support
>>> Reply-To: cayenne-deve..bjectstyle.org
>>>
>>>
>>> I was wondering if there any users out there who deploy on JDK 1.3?
>>> Ok, I know there are WebObjects installations out there that use
>>> JDK 1.1.8, but we won't go that far :-) ... Any major J2EE
>>> container vendor shipped versions in the past 2 years that do not
>>> support 1.4?
>>>
>>> I'd like to eventually clean up the code, ridding it from 1.3
>>> workarounds (such as no nested exceptions support, a need to use
>>> third-party regexps, collections, etc.). Also it is an issue of
>>> testing - it takes extra time to test with 1.3... So maybe not in
>>> Cayenne 1.2, but maybe in 1.2.1 we can do such switch.
>>>
>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Sep 29 2005 - 09:18:39 EDT