[jdom-interest] JDK 4 should not hold us back from generics - let's move on!

[Tatu Saloranta]

I think that in the end "he who codes, wins". So as long as someone is willing to do the gruntwork for changing APIs appropriately, gets the buy-in from others, he/she/they should be able to pursue "back to the future" plan and get JDOM to move to his/her/their preferred direction.
The main practical question would be how to branch things in the source control system, and related question of version numbering scheme to use. Version probably should move to 2.x, given that it is a big compatibility change.

Above are obviously just my opinions, Jason and others with actual power will ultimately decide.

-+ Tatu +-

----- Original Message ----
From: Syloke Soong <ssoong at protedyne.com>
To: Johannes Schneider <johannes at familieschneider.info>; jdom-interest at jdom.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:36:57 AM
Subject: [jdom-interest] JDK 4 should not hold us back from generics - let's move on!

Despite extended discussions on the subject in the past...

If there is a vote on moving jdom to jdk 5, for the sake of generics, I
would vote yes.

I cannot quite recall what I did some months ago, where if I felt
compelled to have generics sets in my code, I simply wrapped any jdom
class with generics code (as I had extraneously wrap legacy code with
c++ code just to enjoy oo-features).

It would be nice if I could skip the extraneous wrapping. It keeps me
wondering how much execution inefficiency that might introduce into
compiled code.

I had been thinking, perhaps, we could have a splinter effort to work on
jdom for generics. Now, I prefer the converse - it's time to freeze jdom
development on jdk 4 and move on to jdk 5. Let a splinter effort take on
continuing jdom development on jdk 4. If jdk 4 programmers are a
minority, it's not good reason to hold the rest of us back.

If after jdom had moved on to jdk 5, and if someone really felt the need
for the latest jdom to run on jdk 4, Retrotranslator could be what they
should turn to. Question for Johannes - but then, we would lose ability
to debug in a jdk 4 env, wouldn't we? If so, my selfish attitude would
say - "Let it be".


-----Original Message-----
From: jdom-interest-bounces at jdom.org
[mailto:jdom-interest-bounces at jdom.org] On Behalf Of Johannes Schneider
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:45 PM
To: jdom-interest at jdom.org
Subject: [jdom-interest] Retrotranslator patch

Hi,

I have created a small patch that adds support for Retrotranslator.
http://www.cedarsoft.org/Retrotranslator.patch

To use the patch, it is also necessary to add three jars from
Retrotranslator to a directory called "retrotranslator".
They can be downloaded here:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=153566&package_id=
170323&release_id=518639


I hope the Generics discussion regains momentum....

-----End of Original Message-----



~

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Even though this company takes every precaution to ensure this email is virus-free, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
Protedyne Corporation, 1000 Day Hill Rd, Windsor, CT 06095, USA,                                                                  
www.protedyne.com

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhost.com





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html