« Return to Thread: next GL version?
Re: next GL version?
by Rob Eden
::
Rate this Message:
I'm all for it. We dropped support for 1.4 a while back with the Trove
library. There was a little bit of griping early on, but not too much.
It's out of support by Sun, so it's quite justifiable at this point.
It's still used on some (primarily IBM-based) mainframe-type settings
(AIX, etc.) but that's fairly rare (especially with GL, I would think).
Rob
On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Holger Brands wrote:
> Ok, I'm fine with 1.9, too.
> So, I guess we don't need a branch (yet).
>
> BTW, if refactoring event data and event delivery is the theme for
> 2.0,
> I'd have no problems to drop JDK 1.4 support in 1.9 already ;-)
> Assuming that the next release will take some months at least,
> that step would be justifiable in my opinion...
>
> Holger
>
>
>> I filled in the build.xml file with 1.9 as the next version number.
>>
>> I think maybe, until we see 2.0ish kinds of features making their way
>> into the GL codebase we should conservatively keep the next planned
>> release as 1.9. What's a 2.0 kind of feature? Something like:
>>
>> - deleted values on ListEvents everywhere...
>> - move types in ListEvents
>> - reworked ListEventPublisher / ListEventAssembler
>>
>> Though I can't wait until we can start using 1.5 features everywhere
>> in the code base. (particularly foreach, real var args, and
>> autoboxing)
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Rob Eden <rob@...>
>> wrote:
>> I guess I'd like to flesh out these ideas for event delivery (the
>> EventBus). It seems that many (most?) of the problems that are coming
>> up on the user list these days are due to event ordering, etc. I don'
>> t know that we're going to find a perfect solution, but it might be
>> the biggest need. Obviously this would be a 2.0 thing because I'm
>> sure some API's would break.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Holger Brands <hbrands@...> wrote:
>> Hey Glaziers,
>>
>> now that 1.8 is real, I just wanted to ask for your opinion
>> what the next version should be (1.9 vs. 2.0) ?
>>
>> If we're directly heading for a 2.0 release, we should probably
>> create a 1.x branch for bugfixes.
>>
>> Initial ideas for a 2.0 could be:
>> - drop migration kit and other deprecated code
>> - drop JDK 1.4 support (Sun J2SE 1.4.x EOL is October 30th, 2008)
>> - fully exploit JDK 1.5 capabilities throughout the code base
>> - make other changes that could break compatibility but are worth
>> the effort, for example removing automatic proxy wrapping in the
>> model adapter classes
>> ...
>>
>> On the other side, a 1.9 release could also make sense to
>> - finish some work that's not yet completed (providing deleted
>> element for example)
>> - add minor new features without breaking compatibility
>> - review code base and deprecate things we want to change or drop in
>> 2.0
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Holger
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________
>> Psssst! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört?
>> Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Deutschlands größte Online-Videothek schenkt Ihnen 12.000 Videos!*
> http://entertainment.web.de/de/entertainment/maxdome/index.html
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
library. There was a little bit of griping early on, but not too much.
It's out of support by Sun, so it's quite justifiable at this point.
It's still used on some (primarily IBM-based) mainframe-type settings
(AIX, etc.) but that's fairly rare (especially with GL, I would think).
Rob
On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Holger Brands wrote:
> Ok, I'm fine with 1.9, too.
> So, I guess we don't need a branch (yet).
>
> BTW, if refactoring event data and event delivery is the theme for
> 2.0,
> I'd have no problems to drop JDK 1.4 support in 1.9 already ;-)
> Assuming that the next release will take some months at least,
> that step would be justifiable in my opinion...
>
> Holger
>
>
>> I filled in the build.xml file with 1.9 as the next version number.
>>
>> I think maybe, until we see 2.0ish kinds of features making their way
>> into the GL codebase we should conservatively keep the next planned
>> release as 1.9. What's a 2.0 kind of feature? Something like:
>>
>> - deleted values on ListEvents everywhere...
>> - move types in ListEvents
>> - reworked ListEventPublisher / ListEventAssembler
>>
>> Though I can't wait until we can start using 1.5 features everywhere
>> in the code base. (particularly foreach, real var args, and
>> autoboxing)
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Rob Eden <rob@...>
>> wrote:
>> I guess I'd like to flesh out these ideas for event delivery (the
>> EventBus). It seems that many (most?) of the problems that are coming
>> up on the user list these days are due to event ordering, etc. I don'
>> t know that we're going to find a perfect solution, but it might be
>> the biggest need. Obviously this would be a 2.0 thing because I'm
>> sure some API's would break.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Holger Brands <hbrands@...> wrote:
>> Hey Glaziers,
>>
>> now that 1.8 is real, I just wanted to ask for your opinion
>> what the next version should be (1.9 vs. 2.0) ?
>>
>> If we're directly heading for a 2.0 release, we should probably
>> create a 1.x branch for bugfixes.
>>
>> Initial ideas for a 2.0 could be:
>> - drop migration kit and other deprecated code
>> - drop JDK 1.4 support (Sun J2SE 1.4.x EOL is October 30th, 2008)
>> - fully exploit JDK 1.5 capabilities throughout the code base
>> - make other changes that could break compatibility but are worth
>> the effort, for example removing automatic proxy wrapping in the
>> model adapter classes
>> ...
>>
>> On the other side, a 1.9 release could also make sense to
>> - finish some work that's not yet completed (providing deleted
>> element for example)
>> - add minor new features without breaking compatibility
>> - review code base and deprecate things we want to change or drop in
>> 2.0
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Holger
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________
>> Psssst! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört?
>> Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Deutschlands größte Online-Videothek schenkt Ihnen 12.000 Videos!*
> http://entertainment.web.de/de/entertainment/maxdome/index.html
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
« Return to Thread: next GL version?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
