[concurrency-interest] Why not J2SE 5?

Hanson Char Hanson Char <hanson.char@gmail.com>
Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:45:58 +1100


I wish jdk1.5 had the option of compiling into at least jdk1.4 byte
code.  So even though production systems still need to stay with 1.4,
development can start moving to 1.5.

Hanson


On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:17:20 +0100, Paul Wagland <paul@kungfoocoder.org> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 6, 2004, at 13:56, Doug Lea wrote:
> 
> >
> > I'm starting to wonder why there's so much resistance out there to
> > changing from 1.x to J2SE5 (1.5). Having seen how obsessed the Sun
> > J2SE5 release managers and engineers were with back-compatibility, and
> > the huge numbers of regression tests run, and the very large number of
> > bug-fixes and performance improvements in J2SE5, I honestly don't know
> > of a good technical reason not to switch over to it, even (or
> > especially?) if people don't need new functionality. I suppose some of
> > it might be just be fear of any x.0 release (to be addressed soon, I
> > think, with the first "underscore" release, "1.5_01" or somesuch
> > name). And maybe it takes time to install/deploy new JVMs across all
> > machines etc. But is there some more fundamental reason that I'm
> > overlooking?
> 
> 
> Yes, there is. (unfortunately)
> 
> One of the reasons that the company that I am currently working for is
> using Java 1.5, is because it is cross-platform. At the moment, the
> list of supported platforms for 1.5 is:
> Windows
> Linux
> Solaris
> 
> A partial list of platforms that currently have 1.4:
> Apple OSX
> AIX
> z/OS
> HP/UX
> 
> Note that those last three are required platforms for support (for us
> at least).
> 
> Add to that, we need to run inside of an application server, last I
> checked, half of those were still based around Java 1.3
> 
> Your mileage may vary, but for many people, that cross platform ability
> really is important, for the reasons stated above, we will be staying
> with Java 1.3 as our target platform, and trying to ensure that we also
> work with newer JDKs where available. Ultimately, for us, that means we
> will be trying the backport of JSR166, and if that does not work, then
> we will continue on with our internally developed classes for this
> functionality.
> 
> On the other hand, we also have a client application, that only needs
> to run on windows and linux. That is allowed to use JDK 1.5.
> 
> Food for thought,
> Cheers,
> Paul
> 
> 
>