Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 jython-dev-request@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:

  
Dropping JDK1.1 support means we can offer better integration with the 
Java Collections framework.

I'd like to see the PySequence subclasses implement the corresponding 
Collection interface.  This means having a PyList instance means you 
have a List instance.  We'd also have to implement the Iterator and 
Enumeration interfaces as well.

The other option is to continue with the delegation pattern as done 
with CollectionIter[2].

I'm for the former.  Thoughts?  I'd like to get some of this design 
work documented so development can begin.
    

I am one of the grateful users of JDK1.1 support.  However, we are
being forced to "upgrade" to Java 2 because the 1.1 JVMs for Linux
no longer run on newer distributions (breaks beginning with RedHat 9,
for instance).  So I won't scream if dropping support streamlines
the design of Jython.

This is a shame, because the 1.1 JVM runs our multi user applications in less
than 1 meg of ram, and we run multiple JVMs for robustness.  With Java 2, the
same app runs in 24 megs of ram, and startup is quite a bit slower.  I don't
mind having lots of additional library classes available in case they
are needed, and don't mind a huge JVM distro due to big libraries.  But I hate
having to load them all at startup.

BTW, we run in classic mode to avoid even more ram use.  CPU is simply
not a problem for business applications.  Memory is.  We are ordering
servers with a minimum 1G ram to compensate, but this doesn't help
with slow startup.
  
Hmm, that's the first time that I've heard someone with the option of using Java2, who is still staying with Java 1.1.  Seems like for most people the improvements in the newer VMs make them desirable (eg, we would be on 1.5 were it not for certain OSes which only support up to Java 1.3).

This is all interesting information... and raises some interesting questions.... how many VMs are you running on these machines?  Is it really so many that the 24 megs of overhead results in problems for a 1 GB machine?  That would seem to imply at least 10-20 VMs?  Not really meaning to fault your reasoning, just curious as this hasn't matched our experience.

Also, just as an aside, not all JVM libraries are loaded at startup.

--
Jess