Moving to JDK 1.5

[David E Jones-2]

Right now OFBiz can be run with both 1.4 and 1.5 versions of Java  
(JDKs). We have resisted requiring 1.5 for a while, but as more  
libraries start requiring it we'll have no choice, and there are  
certain libraries already that require 1.5 that we might want to  
update soon.

So, the big question here is: does anyone have any objections to  
requiring Java 1.5 in order to run OFBiz?

-David

[Christian Geisert]

David E Jones schrieb:
>
> Right now OFBiz can be run with both 1.4 and 1.5 versions of Java
> (JDKs). We have resisted requiring 1.5 for a while, but as more
> libraries start requiring it we'll have no choice, and there are
> certain libraries already that require 1.5 that we might want to  update
> soon.

What about waiting after the release?

--
Christian

[Walter Vaughan]

David E Jones wrote:

> So, the big question here is: does anyone have any objections to  
> requiring Java 1.5 in order to run OFBiz?

Maybe some tips on a wiki page to document changing from 1.4.2 to 1.5 JDK for
various OS's and package management systems to have a place to point people to
when the requisite emails hit this mailing list "I just did an svn and now my
ofbiz is broken. ofBiz suks!!!!"

I noticed this morning when I did a svn that a lot of packages where deleted and
replaced by named versions...

D    framework/webapp/lib/fop.jar
A    framework/webapp/lib/fop-0.92.jar

It seems like it should have been that way all along. What was the reason for
not having version numbers in the jars, and why the switch now?

Oh, in reply to the question... as long as it doesn't make ofbiz run that much
slower... "Sounds good to me!"

--
Walter

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Hi Walter,

Walter Vaughan wrote:

>
> I noticed this morning when I did a svn that a lot of packages where
> deleted and replaced by named versions...
>
> D    framework/webapp/lib/fop.jar
> A    framework/webapp/lib/fop-0.92.jar
>
> It seems like it should have been that way all along. What was the
> reason for not having version numbers in the jars, and why the switch now?
>

A few jars have been upgraded in order to support the new version of FOP
(see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-311); according to new
internal rules for the project
(http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities),
from now on the version number will always be appended to jar files (it
could still be missing in older ones).

Jacopo

[David E Jones-2]

On Dec 4, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Hi Walter,
>
> Walter Vaughan wrote:
>> I noticed this morning when I did a svn that a lot of packages  
>> where deleted and replaced by named versions...
>> D    framework/webapp/lib/fop.jar
>> A    framework/webapp/lib/fop-0.92.jar
>> It seems like it should have been that way all along. What was the  
>> reason for not having version numbers in the jars, and why the  
>> switch now?
>
> A few jars have been upgraded in order to support the new version  
> of FOP (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-311); 
> according to new internal rules for the project (http://
> docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and
> +Responsibilities), from now on the version number will always be  
> appended to jar files (it could still be missing in older ones).

The reason the versions weren't there in the older ones is that we  
didn't always have a fancy classpath loader like we do now and every  
jar file had to be explicitly added to the classpath, and to make it  
more interesting that had to happen in multiple files because for a  
while we also didn't have the cool appserver component templates that  
we do now.

-David

[cjhowe]

--- David E Jones <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The reason the versions weren't there in the older
> ones is that we  
> didn't always have a fancy classpath loader like we
> do now and every  
> jar file had to be explicitly added to the
> classpath, and to make it  
> more interesting that had to happen in multiple
> files because for a  
> while we also didn't have the cool appserver
> component templates that  
> we do now.
>
> -David
>

Where are the various jars being added to the
classpath loader? Is it the ant script or the
ofbiz-component.xml files (or somewhere else)?  The
reason why I ask is because of the behavior of the
type attribute in the field element of the
call-*-method operation in minilang.  For some reason
using a call-bsh has access to the classes in these
jars but call-object-method does not (otherwise the
primitive types would work without the patch in OFBIZ-400).

[Si Chen-2]

Not from me.

I wonder if we should do it before the next official OFBiz release,  
or make one more 1.4 compatible release before moving to 1.5?

On Dec 3, 2006, at 1:25 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> Right now OFBiz can be run with both 1.4 and 1.5 versions of Java  
> (JDKs). We have resisted requiring 1.5 for a while, but as more  
> libraries start requiring it we'll have no choice, and there are  
> certain libraries already that require 1.5 that we might want to  
> update soon.
>
> So, the big question here is: does anyone have any objections to  
> requiring Java 1.5 in order to run OFBiz?
>
> -David
>

Best Regards,

Si
[hidden email]

[Andrew Zeneski]

My two cents... Since we are so close to a release and since it has been
so long since our last official release, I would like to keep this one
both 1.4 and 1.5 compatible.

After the release I have no problem developing off 1.5 since it has been
around long enough.

Andy


Si Chen wrote:

> Not from me.
>
> I wonder if we should do it before the next official OFBiz release, or
> make one more 1.4 compatible release before moving to 1.5?
>
> On Dec 3, 2006, at 1:25 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Right now OFBiz can be run with both 1.4 and 1.5 versions of Java
>> (JDKs). We have resisted requiring 1.5 for a while, but as more
>> libraries start requiring it we'll have no choice, and there are
>> certain libraries already that require 1.5 that we might want to
>> update soon.
>>
>> So, the big question here is: does anyone have any objections to
>> requiring Java 1.5 in order to run OFBiz?
>>
>> -David
>>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Si
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>

[David E Jones-2]

This is a good question, and I'm not sure about it.

One of the objectives with a release though is to get as much stuff  
in before the release as possible and that is not too likely to  
introduce bugs. The reason for this is that with OFBiz a release is a  
community rallying point, not like a commercial software release that  
goes through thousands of hours of testing before it is made  
available to paying customers.

I other words, we want the release to be relevant for as long as  
possible so that interested parties will be more interested and able  
to help maintain it with back-patched bug fixes, testing, validation,  
etc.

-David


On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:46 AM, A. Zeneski wrote:

> My two cents... Since we are so close to a release and since it has  
> been
> so long since our last official release, I would like to keep this one
> both 1.4 and 1.5 compatible.
>
> After the release I have no problem developing off 1.5 since it has  
> been
> around long enough.
>
> Andy
>
>
> Si Chen wrote:
>> Not from me.
>>
>> I wonder if we should do it before the next official OFBiz  
>> release, or
>> make one more 1.4 compatible release before moving to 1.5?
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2006, at 1:25 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Right now OFBiz can be run with both 1.4 and 1.5 versions of Java
>>> (JDKs). We have resisted requiring 1.5 for a while, but as more
>>> libraries start requiring it we'll have no choice, and there are
>>> certain libraries already that require 1.5 that we might want to
>>> update soon.
>>>
>>> So, the big question here is: does anyone have any objections to
>>> requiring Java 1.5 in order to run OFBiz?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Si
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>