Agree; if you're doing work at a customer site, you use what the
customer has, and lots of folks are still on JDK 1.3. I wouldn't dream of
using it for any new stand-alone development mind you, but if it's gotta run
on a customer's hardware inside their managed box, it's got to use whatever
JVM they've standardized on.
Plus, isn't Websphere JDK 1.3? So, again, if your customer is an IBM
shop, you probably need 1.3, etc.
My point is that it's very unlikely the OP is the one saying "yes, I
know 1.3 is four years out of date, but we should use it anyway." More than
likely he's stuck using the thing himself and would love to use 1.5 instead.
So chastising him for using 1.3 strikes me as blaming the victim.
That being said, I'm not sure if I were Howard that I'd do the work
to produce a 1.3 compatible version. At some point the framework has to
advance, even if it leaves a subset of the customer base behind. That's
something he's in a position to assess though that we're not e.g. he knows
how much of a pita it would be to get 1.3 compatibility, and he knows how
many customer's he'd upset that way.
--- Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detlef Schulze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 7:58 AM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: RE: Re: Tapestry 4.0 is NOT Java 1.3 compliant
>
> There are many people out there that are stuck with that dilemma, and
> your comment is not helpful at all.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holger Hoffstaette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 January 2006 16:38
> To: tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Tapestry 4.0 is NOT Java 1.3 compliant
>
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:34:53 +0000, Johny wrote:
>
> > At the risk of repeating myself, could I just highlight the issue of
> 1.3
> > compliancy. It was mentioned a few places that Tapestry 4.0 is Java
> 1.3
> > compliant, even thouh some examples are not (using annotations etc.).
>
> If you are still using 1.3 for server-side work you practically
> *deserve*
> to be ignored by the rest of the world because those VMs are known to
> have
> serious deadlock and data corruption bugs. Fire your CTO. I am at a
> total
> loss why companies think they can just "decide" that the rest of the
> world
> has to freeze just for them.
>
> Howard, please start using 1.5 exclusively (if only for util.concurrent)
> and provide 1.4-compatibility via retrotranslator
> (http://retrotranslator.sourceforge.net/) which is way better than
> retroweaver and "just works".
>
> -h
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
