RE: [higgins-dev] Java 5, going once...

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe we should move to AJAX, JASON, Python, or some other language since they are popular and in vogue now, and next month we can select another one to move to and so on ...

So as I indicated the issues are around backwards compatibility, most 1.4 code will run in a 1.5 environment, its just that not all can be compiled with 1.5, so right now we have upwards compatibility once we go to Java 1.5 we run the risk of folks that are not on Java 1.5 (on Java 1.4.x) not being able to use Higgins

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

"Tom Doman" ---12/02/2008 10:32:00 AM---Not to mention the fact that Java 6 has been released for some time and we're putting effort into backporting?

From:	"Tom Doman" <tdoman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	"Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	12/02/2008 10:32 AM
Subject:	RE: [higgins-dev] Java 5, going once...

---

Not to mention the fact that Java 6 has been released for some time and we're putting effort into backporting?

Tom
 
>>> "George Stanchev" <Gstanchev@xxxxxxxxxx> 12/02/08 9:22 AM >>> 
One of the reasons I asked about Java5 was also that the WS- Federation
PRP/Web SSO code we are contributing to
Higgins is already written for Java5. Backporting it is possible, but I
don't want to go and spend a week or two backporting
it, testing it, etc just to reverse in 6 months or an year.
 
Is it possible some components to stay in Java 5 or we need to be
all- or- nothing for Higgins?
 
George

________________________________

From: higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:08 AM
To: higgins- dev
Subject: Re: [higgins- dev] Java 5, going once...



To summarize the discussion at the F2F: we wanted to end up with a
RESTful service to IdAS. We also wanted whatever we delivered to be
extensible for a number of reasons. One of which was so that people who
wish to deploy this service could, as seamlessly as possible, integrate
their own additional services. In addition, we wanted extensibility
where that would make sense and feel natural (specifically extensibility
of authentication mechanisms) 


After some consideration, JSR 311 looked like it met the goals we had
except that it requires Java 5. Further, it appears to me to be gaining
fairly quick and wide adoption. That said, I haven't done a deep
analysis of other Java REST service frameworks. I'm having a hard time
finding anything that brings what JSR311 does. Are there some
alternatives we should be evaluating? 


Jim

>>> Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx> 12/1/2008 6:07 AM >>>


Was not there at the F2F but there are a lot of RESTFul interfaces that
don't use JSR 311 not sure of the applicability of JSR 311

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

 "Jim Sermersheim" --- 12/01/2008 02:04:59 AM--- I brought this up at the
last F2F because I was proposing that we use JSR 311 (JAX- RS) as the
framework with which we build a R



  
From: 

 
"Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 

 
To: 

 
higgins- dev <higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

 
Date: 

 
12/01/2008 02:04 AM 

 
Subject: 

 
Re: [higgins- dev] Java 5, going once... 

________________________________




I brought this up at the last F2F because I was proposing that we use
JSR 311 (JAX- RS) as the framework with which we build a ReSTful service
which exposes IdAS. My read of consensus was that using the JSR 311
framework was the right way to go.  


The JSR 311 framework requires Java 5 due to its use of annotations.  


I assumed this reason would be sufficient for us to make the move
forward.  


Jim

>>> Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx> 11/27/2008 3:27 PM >>>
Since the current build is on 1.4 so what is the rational to change ?
I'm not seeing the motivation to change or do we just change things ?

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

Paul Trevithick --- 11/26/2008 08:46:29 AM--- I've been waiting to see if
anyone will step forward and argue for why they require 1.4.X support
for Higgins 1.1 (specificall



 
From:  

 
Paul Trevithick <ptrevithick@xxxxxxxxx>  

 
To:  

 
higgins- dev <higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>  

 
Date:  

 
11/26/2008 08:46 AM  

 
Subject:  

 
[higgins- dev] Java 5, going once...  

________________________________




I've been waiting to see if anyone will step forward and argue for why
they require 1.4.X support for Higgins 1.1 (specifically). As we
discussed in the F2F if someone requires 1.4.X they at least have the
option of using Higgins 1.0. Not a great option because so much is
progressing in 1.1, but it's something. Historically Tony of IBM has put
forward IBM's requirement for 1.4.X, but they have been silent on the
issue of late.

Unless we hear soon from IBM or others on this point, we'll take one
last poll, and then move to Java 5 for Higgins 1.1.

- Paul _______________________________________________
higgins- dev mailing list
higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins- dev
_______________________________________________
higgins- dev mailing list
higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins- dev




**********************************************************************
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. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e- mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 
**********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev