Re: [sipX-dev] Java compatibility problem
On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Damian Krzeminski wrote:
Marden P. Marshall wrote:
On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Dale Worley wrote:
I'd like to get Java compatibility straightened out.
The currently built RPMs have a 'require' for Java version >= 1.6.
The
currently distributed RPM set contains such a Java RPM.
However, this could force a Java upgrade on some users, as earlier
versions of sipX only require Java version >= 1.5.
I looked at the discussions of this issue on sipx-dev. The last
thread
I found starts at
http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/msg12614.html One or
two
people suggested we push users to upgrade to Java 1.6. Damien noted
that we previously stated on sipx-dev
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.voip.sipx.devel/9437) that
there
would be one more version ("3.12", now called 4.0) that would be
compatible with 1.5. There seemed to be no compelling reasons not
to
follow this path, and that pretty much ended the discussion.
So we are now in a state where the code is not compatible with the
discussions on sipx-dev. I'd like to get this conflict resolved.
Opinions?
Dale
Why do you believe that there is a conflict? Our code will compile
and run perfectly well on J5. As for the RPM's requiring J6, that is
a totally different matter. Since 4.0 will ship with J6, the PRM's
call out that version. This will ensure that consistency will be
maintained in regards to JVM versions regardless of wether or not the
installation was a clean install or an upgrade.
-Mardy
I really do not understand the consistency argument: what if someone
installs 1.7?
I think RPMs should require the lowest version that is actually
required -
in this case 1.5.
D.
D.
The vast majority of the supported customers are not going to be
installing their own copies of Java, but instead rely on what we have
supplied, either from our installation CD's or yum repositories. And
since both of those sources supply J6, I believe that is what we
should be calling for.
I understand that in this particular situation the RPM Requires
directive is not being used in strict conformance with its defined
purpose, but instead is being used in an effort to maintain
consistency. Whether or not you believe there is any value in having
version parity amongst supported installations, I can see no downside
in attempting to do so.
-Mardy
