On Jan 16, 2008 10:28 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Reilly wrote: > > > I do not think we should do this. > > As far as I know, there is no super compelling reason to make ant only > > work on java 1.4 +, > > > I was curious as it is a lot easier to do relative URLs with the > java.net.URI class, which is java 1.4+ only > > > java5, on the other hand.... > > we switched to java5 @ Work, primarily because once you read all the > (wonderful) papers on the Java Memory Model, you can't trust the JVM's > memory accesses to volatile keyworded data in a multithreaded app. > > It does offer lots of advantages > -new collections > -iterators > -ability to have subclasses return subtypes on overridden methods > -concurrency API > > That's before you worry about annotations. > > I think if we made a jump to java5 for Ant1.8 we'd upset all the java1.4 > users out there (and there are still a lot -I can see that for > discussons on testng-users mailing list, people who annotations in > javadoc. However, I can also see that we'd want to move to java 5 > eventually, and we need to move from java1.3 to 1.4 first. So having a > move from java1.3 for java 1.8 would seem a first a step.
There are a woe-full amount of java 1.3 users as well.. Peter > > > > -- > Steve Loughran http://www.1060.org/blogxter/publish/5 > Author: Ant in Action http://antbook.org/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
