[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ormf-dev] Should we change our JVM requirement to Java 6
|
I don't think that actually adds anything new. Cocoa is on the 3.5
train. If I missed something please let me know.
Thanks,
Joel
On 12 Sep 2008, at 08:49, Achim Loerke wrote:
Just for your information, Steve Northover seems to believe that the
Cocoa port will be available in the foreseeable future: http://inside-swt.blogspot.com/2008/09/back-to-work.html
Achim
Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
It appears that this is not going to fly. I forgot that OS X still
does not have a 32-bit Java 6 (only the 64-bit) and SWT on OS X is
tied to the 32-bit implementation. This is because SWT on OS X is
built on top of Carbon which is pure 32-bit. So until OS X SWT
moves over to Cocoa or someone delivers a 32-bit Java 6 for OS X we
are stuck with Java 5. Neither are likely to happen soon :-( Apple
is being as slow as molasses with Java 6 and the Eclipse SWT team
is in early stages for Cocoa support with guesses being Eclipse 3.5
for release.
Btw, I have tried SoyaLatte (OpenJDK) with no joy. Even if it did
work I would not be terribly comfortable with requiring all ORMF
users on the Mac to be required to use it.
Sorry but I do not think that we should give up the Mac community
over this issues.
So I vote: -1
:-(
Joel On 8 Sep 2008, at 12:37, Chereches Vasile wrote:
Also a +1 for Java6.
Regards.
----- Original Message ----
From: Joel Rosi-Schwartz <Joel.Rosi-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Joel.Rosi-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx
>>
To: The Open Requirements Management Framework project development
list <ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Sunday, 7 September, 2008 18:10:30
Subject: [ormf-dev] Should we change our JVM requirement to Java 6
We have a several problematic CQs because of our usage of JAX-WS
2.0 when running under Java 5. Seeing as JAX--WS comes out of the
box with Java 6, if we moved our minimum JVM to 6 these could all
be dropped. We still have to find a work around to the Java 6 bug
6741342 <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?
bug_id=6741342> that is the root of our issue number 240579 <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/process_bug.cgi
>, but this must be addressed as a matter of priority in any case.
Both Barbara and I are in favour of this move. Does anyone have
any considerations?
Joel
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
--
BREDEX GmbH
Mauernstr. 33
38100 Braunschweig
Tel.: +49-531-24330-0
Fax: +49-531-24330-99
http: www.bredex.de
Geschäftsführer: Hans-J. Brede, Achim Lörke, Ulrich Obst
Amtsgericht Braunschweig HRB 2450
<Achim_Loerke.vcf>_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
