[concurrency-interest] Why not J2SE 5?

Michael Ogg ogg@valaran.com
Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:41:29 -0500

but it does:
javac -target x.y
will do just what you want.


Hanson Char wrote:

> 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
>>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:
>>A partial list of platforms that currently have 1.4:
>>Apple OSX
>>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
>>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,
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest@altair.cs.oswego.edu
> http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest