Hi!
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on
> the following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be
> clearly documented
+1 Even for 1.5.x beeing the last JDK 1.1 release. We can start 1.2+
refactoring (like using collections) in 1.6 and continue i
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Most likely a "fix" will be more introspection magic...
>
> Not in this case. The code that is JDK 1.2 dependent in Diagnostics
> can be replaced by 1.1 code without too much pain (it can be stolen
> from the JUnit task, for example).
Maybe in this case - but more cod
At 03:28 PM 3/13/2003, Conor MacNeill wrote:
I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly documented
+1
2. Make the subsequent release require JDK 1.2+ (what about leap frogging to
later versions?)
I d
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the
following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
documented
I would say 1.5.x so long as x is not frozen. IOW, if there
are
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ?
>>
>> Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has
>> a st
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> Just as a data point, CVS HEAD (Ant 1.6) has not compiled against
>>> JDK 1.1 for a while now (due to diagnostics changes).
>>
>> But I've nagged Steve about it and promise to fix it during the
>> next fe
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ?
>
> Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has
> a strong requirement of compiling against 1.1.
And using ant1.5 won't be enoug
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Fine with me.
>
> I'd like to keep 1.6 compatible to JDK 1.1, though. When we make 1.2
> a requirement, we'd better start using collections and URLClassloader
> consistently - and doing this for 1.6 would push 1.6 even further down
> the timeline.
There are 3 issues:
1.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any active committer that uses JDK1.1 ?
Me, from time to time. I still have to maintain a library that has
a strong requirement of compiling against 1.1.
> Are any active committers that are willing to support 1.1 ?
So
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
> documented
Fine with me.
I'd like to keep 1.6 compatible to JDK 1.1, though. When we make 1.2
a requirement, we'd better start using collections and URLClassloade
Steve Loughran wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:53
Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support
Then let's figure out if we shouldn't drop JDK1.1 now.
I think moving to 1.2
Adam Murdoch wrote:
> It would also be a perfect time for a bit of selective
> backwards-compatibility breaking at the code level: eg sort out the
> classloader heirarchy, ditch deprecated methods, separate the core into
> public api and private internals, split up project's responsibilities,
> se
Steve Loughran wrote:
>> I'm +1 to maintaining support for 1.1 if at least one committer is
>> willing to volunteer to support it ( and does it ).
>
> 1. what do we gain from dropping 1.1 support at this stage in ant1.6?
Few things. Using URLClassLoader would simplify a lot of code - to me
that
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 01:02 pm, Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> Maybe we should ask the user community, not the dev mailing list.
>
Good idea - done.
--
Conor MacNeill
Blog: http://codefeed.com/blog/
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:53
Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support
> Then let's figure out if we shouldn't drop JDK1.1 now.
>
> Is there any active co
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:28 pm, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
> documented
+1 for ditching JDK 1.1. Presumably we would still support compilation with
an exte
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:53 am, Costin Manolache wrote:
> Conor MacNeill wrote:
> > I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the
> > following
> >
> > 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
> > documented
>
> +1
> ( I would be +1 on making ant1.5 the la
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the
> following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would be clearly
> documented
+1
( I would be +1 on making ant1.5 the last JDK1.1 release :-)
> 2. Make the subsequent release require JDK
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:10
Subject: Re: JDK 1.1 support
>
> >
> > yes, that was my fault, wasnt it. File a bug aga
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:55 am, Steve Loughran wrote:
> From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 4. Drop all the Ant2 cruft from the website.
>
> I think it should be preserved.
>
Some it is still interesting and worth keeping. By cruft I mean statements
like
"We are currently hashing out
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 15:28
Subject: JDK 1.1 support
> I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the
following
>
> 1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would b
+1
-Original Message-
From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JDK 1.1 support
I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would b
+1
-Original Message-
From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JDK 1.1 support
I'd like to throw this up again. What are peoples thoughts on the following
1. Make Ant 1.6.x the last JDK 1.1 release. This would b
23 matches
Mail list logo
