The spec defines a conforming JSP 2.0 implementation as one that runs on JDK 1.4. A JSP author may therefore assume the new API's are available when creating their webapp. It's a serious issue for, say, Oracle, or IBM, who has a custom Java VM.
But, I hadn't noticed that Apache is bundling JDK's with Tomcat. To assemble a conforming platform, a JDK 1.4 must be provided. If you use a 1.3 level JDK, then the conformance test would, presumeably, fail. And some conforming JSP pages that rely on new APIs wouldn't work. I don't see any requirement that a random JSP 2.0 page absolutely not run on JDK 1.2 or 1.3. It's simply out of scope for the spec. It comes down to what JDK level Jakarta wants to support. Tomcat 5.0 MUST run on JDK 1.4. Allowing it to run on JDK 1.3 or 1.2 should not hinder that. On Monday 07 October 2002 04:50 pm, Remy Maucherat wrote: > Costin Manolache wrote: > > iasandcb wrote: > >>Now it's almost clear that SRV 2.4 requires JDK 1.2 and JSP 2.0 does JDK > >>1.4. The main issue is discrepancy of J2SE requirement between SRV 2.4 > >>and JSP 2.0, which are supposed to come up together. > > > > Actually, it isn't. > > > > All we know is that the current draft has this requirement. We should > > find a proper procedure ( for example a vote on tomcat dev ) and then > > ask our representative in JCP ( Geir for example - he's a very nice > > person ) to request a change. > > > > I don't know what's the proper mechanism yet - but Apache does have > > a representative and a vote, and we should have a way to have the > > opinion of tomcat-dev expressed. > > > > If the final JSP2.0 will require 1.4 - then we'll have to do that. It > > would be very unfortunate ( especially for jsp people ), and will > > require ( IMO ) a separate tomcat without JSPs. > > > > My opinion ( and it seems a lot of people have the same opinion ) that > > portability ( in the sense of beeing able to run on most OS and platforms > > ) seems to agree with what Apache is doing in most projects ( Apache > > server runs on more platforms than java - and did that even before 'write > > once, run everywhere'). We should first explore the alternative for > > having this opinion confirmed ( vote ? ) and expressed in the expert > > group. > > > > If the EG prefers features over portability - then we need to find a > > way to create a distribution without JSP ( is this possible ?) and maybe > > compensate by including cocoon or velocity. > > Personally, I would support 1.3 (and 1.2 assuming you are willing to > download missing libraries). 1.4 brings I/O improvements so it's a nice > JDK choice, even if the nio API itself seems useless for Tomcat. > > I have no problem with including Velocity if people want it. As for > Cocoon, it is huge, so this looks like a bad idea. > > If you're interested in the issue, you should make a proper call for vote. > > Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
