Re: [xmlblaster] Poll for future xmlBlaster direction

[Heinrich Götzger <Heinrich.Goetzger at exploding-systems.de>]

Hi,
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004, Marcel Ruff wrote:

> Hi,
>
> for the next steps of xmlBlaster evolution we need some feedback.
> First some basic issues.
>
> Please vote on the different topics if you have an opinion about
> it or if your environment dictates it.
>
> The Xmas 1.0 xmlBlaster release is JDK 1.3 compatible on server side.
> It will only be patched for bug fixes and will remain JDK 1.3 compatible.
> Typical version numberings will be 1.01, 1.02.
>
> The new development will be on the main trunk and will lead to release 1.1
>
> o JDK server side:
>    Which JDK should we support on server side, do we need support for
>
>    - JDK 1.3
>    - JDK 1.4
>    - JDK 1.5
>
>    We would like to drop JDK 1.3 as JDK 1.4 offers SSL, logging,
>    scalable socket IO and many more goodies.
>    If we can drop JDK 1.4 support we can use the nice JDK 1.5
>    features like built in JMX, concurrency and templates.
>
>

If there is no reasonable vote against upgrading, my vote is for JDK 1.5
for the further development on server side.

> o JDK client side
>    If we change to the Java logging API we need for client side
>    at least JDK 1.4 as well
>    (Note we have a tiny J2ME and Applet based Java client lib as well
>     which won't use any advanced java constructs).
>
>    - JDK 1.2
>    - JDK 1.3
>    - JDK 1.4
>    - JDK 1.5
>
>

On client side I think about HP-UX 10.20 which has no support for JDK 1.3
afaik. Or there might be some constraints with some proprietary ORB i.e.
Visibroker. So running a ClientLib with JDK 1.2 or 1.3 should still be
considered IMHO.

If it is not too much effort, we could think about two versions of client
libs per release.

> o Logging API
>    If we change to JDK 1.4 we should/could use
>    JDK1.4's java.util.logging framework. This will be the standard in future
>    as it is delivered with the JDK.
This might not be happen as I see lots of projects using log4j as well.

>    To be more open there are Apache's logging interfaces
>    http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/
>    Which logging should we use?
>
>    - Keep existing xmlBlaster logging interface?
>    - Jakarta commons logging Interfaces?
>    - JDK 1.4 java.util.logging?
>    - Other approach (http://java-source.net/open-source/logging ...)?

My vote goes for JCL if we change something. Since JCL provides
thin-wrapper Log implementations for other logging tools, including Log4J.
At least on client side we should think to be open or configurable to meet
the users logging system more easy.

>
>
> o JMX
>    Using JDK 1.5 will enable for us simple JMX support
>    Is this reason enough to go to JDK 1.5 or should we
>    use third party JMX libraries, which do you recommend?
It gives us at least the chance to choose ;-)

>
>Please post your opinions,
>
>Marcel
>
>--
>http://www.xmlBlaster.org
>

just my two EuroCents.

kind regards

Heinrich
--
http://www.xmlBlaster.org