From: Howard B. G. <how...@ya...> - 2007-01-23 03:34:18
|
Hi,=0A=0AReading earlier messages I saw some discussion about which JDK ver= sion to conform to and which version(s) to support for Jython 2.2 and futur= e. However, I didn't see a decision or consensus. Has there been one? If no= t, I'd like some guidance. Thanks.=0A=0AHoward=0A=0A |
From: Charlie G. <cha...@gm...> - 2007-01-23 05:59:54
|
Jython 2.3 is using Java 1.4. Jython 2.2 has been keeping compatibility with 1.2 but may slip to 1.3 as 1.2 shows its age. Charlie On 1/22/07, Howard B. Golden <how...@ya...> wrote: > Hi, > > Reading earlier messages I saw some discussion about which JDK version to conform to and which version(s) to support for Jython 2.2 and future. However, I didn't see a decision or consensus. Has there been one? If not, I'd like some guidance. Thanks. > > Howard > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Jython-dev mailing list > Jyt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev > |
From: Charles O. N. <cha...@su...> - 2007-01-23 07:00:45
|
Charlie Groves wrote: > Jython 2.3 is using Java 1.4. Jython 2.2 has been keeping > compatibility with 1.2 but may slip to 1.3 as 1.2 shows its age. Ugh...ditch both 1.2 and 1.3. Realize that 1.3 is now almost seven years old. How much software are you running today that was released seven years ago? - Charlie |
From: Pekka L. <pe...@ik...> - 2007-01-23 08:26:37
|
2007/1/23, Charles Oliver Nutter <cha...@su...>: > Charlie Groves wrote: > > Jython 2.3 is using Java 1.4. Jython 2.2 has been keeping > > compatibility with 1.2 but may slip to 1.3 as 1.2 shows its age. > > Ugh...ditch both 1.2 and 1.3. Realize that 1.3 is now almost seven years > old. How much software are you running today that was released seven > years ago? I for one saw Java 1.3 in use last year in an enterprise environment but even in that case they were supposed to use 1.4. If keeping 1.3 support is not too big a burden it could be good for Jython 2.2 but dropping Java 1.2 is surely a safe move. There's Jython 2.1 for those needing Jython on legacy Java anyway. Cheers, .peke |
From: Charlie G. <cha...@gm...> - 2007-01-23 14:18:01
|
On 1/23/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <cha...@su...> wrote: > Charlie Groves wrote: > > Jython 2.3 is using Java 1.4. Jython 2.2 has been keeping > > compatibility with 1.2 but may slip to 1.3 as 1.2 shows its age. > > Ugh...ditch both 1.2 and 1.3. Realize that 1.3 is now almost seven years > old. How much software are you running today that was released seven > years ago? The actual age does nothing to convince me to move on. It takes me the same amount of work to setup a 1.3 or 1.4 development environment; 1.2 is more difficult since it's been end of lifed. If there's some feature in 1.4 that 2.2 needs, then there's something to talk about. Charlie |
From: Charles O. N. <cha...@su...> - 2007-01-23 23:50:59
|
Charlie Groves wrote: > On 1/23/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <cha...@su...> wrote: >> Charlie Groves wrote: >> > Jython 2.3 is using Java 1.4. Jython 2.2 has been keeping >> > compatibility with 1.2 but may slip to 1.3 as 1.2 shows its age. >> >> Ugh...ditch both 1.2 and 1.3. Realize that 1.3 is now almost seven years >> old. How much software are you running today that was released seven >> years ago? > > The actual age does nothing to convince me to move on. It takes me > the same amount of work to setup a 1.3 or 1.4 development environment; > 1.2 is more difficult since it's been end of lifed. If there's some > feature in 1.4 that 2.2 needs, then there's something to talk about. > > Charlie I'd say you need to also consider something else: This is all *new* development. The old versions of Jython will continue to work fine as they do now, and if some shop is still on Java 1.2 or 1.3, they can put in the work to maintain their own Jython version that supports those releases. 1.4.1 and earlier have all been EOL'ed by Sun 1.4 performance is substantially improved over previous releases In fact, we've taken a lot of flak on JRuby for staying on 1.4.2, and were starting to feel like that's almost too old to support, but we know folks (and have community members) that are still on 1.4.2 and don't have an option to upgrade yet. Going out of our way to support 1.3 would be considered almost laughable in the JRuby community...and we've seen exactly zero demand for it. I'd say you should just make the jump to 1.4.2, and if 5% of your userbase complains, they can take up the job of advancing Jython themselves. You can't let a tiny minority of users dictate your future development. - Charlie |
From: Charlie G. <cha...@gm...> - 2007-01-24 02:11:53
|
On 1/23/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <cha...@su...> wrote: > In fact, we've taken a lot of flak on JRuby for staying on 1.4.2, and > were starting to feel like that's almost too old to support, but we know > folks (and have community members) that are still on 1.4.2 and don't > have an option to upgrade yet. Going out of our way to support 1.3 would > be considered almost laughable in the JRuby community...and we've seen > exactly zero demand for it. > > I'd say you should just make the jump to 1.4.2, and if 5% of your > userbase complains, they can take up the job of advancing Jython > themselves. You can't let a tiny minority of users dictate your future > development. My argument all along has been predicated on our having to put out very little effort to remain compatible with earlier versions. The remaining work on 2.2 is all internal jython stuff that doesn't really need any help from new libraries in updated versions of Java. Oti's struggles with getting compilation working with 1.2 and the big red box that Ray found are enough to convince me that there will be extra work to keep things compatible with earlier versions, so I'm fine with moving to 1.4.2 now. Charlie |
From: Frank W. <fwi...@gm...> - 2007-01-24 03:16:49
|
On 1/23/07, Charlie Groves <cha...@gm...> wrote: > My argument all along has been predicated on our having to put out > very little effort to remain compatible with earlier versions. The > remaining work on 2.2 is all internal jython stuff that doesn't really > need any help from new libraries in updated versions of Java. Oti's > struggles with getting compilation working with 1.2 and the big red > box that Ray found are enough to convince me that there will be extra > work to keep things compatible with earlier versions, so I'm fine with > moving to 1.4.2 now. If 1.3 is really dead for all intents and purposes, then I am fine with going to 1.4.2 as well. We can't go beyound 1.4.2 though, because Jython 1.1 does not work well above 1.4, so it would make migration difficult. The 2.3/2.4 release is a different matter, but I don't really want to make any decisions there until 2.2 is out. -Frank |
From: Oti <oh...@gm...> - 2007-01-24 07:19:22
|
Me too. I confess last time we discussed it I was saying we promised 1.2 support. But I was not aware of the difficulties to really compile it. So this "support" would only be an intentional or theoretical one. In fact all the snapshot builds are 1.4.2 based, and therefore very well tested. And - as an aside - the installer really uses 1.4.2 features. So I am pretty confident with 1.4.2 best wishes, Oti. On 1/24/07, Frank Wierzbicki <fwi...@gm...> wrote: > On 1/23/07, Charlie Groves <cha...@gm...> wrote: > > My argument all along has been predicated on our having to put out > > very little effort to remain compatible with earlier versions. The > > remaining work on 2.2 is all internal jython stuff that doesn't really > > need any help from new libraries in updated versions of Java. Oti's > > struggles with getting compilation working with 1.2 and the big red > > box that Ray found are enough to convince me that there will be extra > > work to keep things compatible with earlier versions, so I'm fine with > > moving to 1.4.2 now. > If 1.3 is really dead for all intents and purposes, then I am fine > with going to 1.4.2 as well. We can't go beyound 1.4.2 though, > because Jython 1.1 does not work well above 1.4, so it would make > migration difficult. The 2.3/2.4 release is a different matter, but I > don't really want to make any decisions there until 2.2 is out. > > -Frank > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Jython-dev mailing list > Jyt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev > |
From: Eric D. <er...@do...> - 2007-01-24 17:06:29
|
On Jan 23, 2007, at 8:16 PM, Frank Wierzbicki wrote: > Jython 1.1 does not work well above 1.4, so it would make > migration difficult. I know I'm a newcomer, but Frank's point is compelling. For people with existing Jython 2.1 code to migrate, it is definitely important to give them a common JVM on which they can migrate from 2.1 to 2.2. For later releases, there's important political value in adopting 1.6. Sun is clearly committed to supporting dynamic languages on the JVM. 1.6 is their first official release in this direction and jython is the original poster child for dynamic languages on the JVM. Let's give Sun some positive reinforcement for their interest in dynamic languages by putting their work to use in the 2.3 release of jython. -Eric ps. I can't help but notice that something important is going on here. It's a new thing in the world to see three language communities (Java, Python, Ruby) genuinely collaborating instead of continuing the traditional language wars. |