On 3/7/06, Alex Karasulu <aok123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
All I know is this though.  I will probably not veto any move to use
this retroweaver stuff but I'm a -0 on it.  Something about it does not
sound right.  I don't like the idea of bytecode massaging at all.  Maybe
because it screws up my debugger making it freak out.  Is this a valid
concern?  Perhaps this is best on another thread.

Retro(weaver|translater) won't change much of the originally compiled classes.  It won't harm debuggability AFAIK though we need to test it.  I think we definitely have to test if it works fine with debugger and what it cannot provide us.

The biggest problem will be checking runtime compatibility because these translaters won't provide some classes or methods which exists only in Java 5 API.  But I think this will be resolved by providing more unit tests, which is our long term goal.

Sounds like we need more consideration before jumping to 1.5 JDK.
However people are ignoring the fact that we have a living supported 1.0
branch in the works and it was started just a month ago.  Why the big
reaction?  If people need a directory to embed it can they not stick to
1.0.  Do they need all the fancy features in 1.1?

Yes we need to experiment with these translators.  MINA is relatively a small project comparing to ApacheDS, so we could experiment with it.

As always, migration from one version of JDK to other version is both a sensation and PITA. :D

So my idea is to experiment the translators so we can decide.  The biggest issues here are two:

* Is the translated class debuggable?  (Perhaps yes)
* Does the translator warn if unsupported API is used?  (Perhaps no, but it's OK if we have enough unit tests.)

what we call human nature is actually human habit
PGP key fingerprints:
* E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41  4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E
* B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4  455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6