Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Europa and EMF 3.0


Yes.  Certainly there isn't anything 5.0 specific that we'd need in the tools in order to generate 5.0 specific code.  We just need a 5.0 specific runtime to support the 5.0 specific code.

Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

"Ed Burnette" <Ed.Burnette@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/08/2006 05:17 PM

Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

"Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Europa and EMF 3.0

Would it be technically possible to have EMF 3 run on 1.4 VM's yet generate code that targets both 1.4 and 5.0 VM's?

From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Merks
Saturday, October 07, 2006 8:29 AM
Cross project issues; emf-dev
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Europa and EMF 3.0


Yes, we do intend to generate 2.2 compatible code.

Such a feature would continue as long as it's required by clients, which is probably forever.

I don't know all the draw backs yet.  I suppose it's a little more complex to set the target platform rather than directly use the running platform.  That's probably it though.

We will not necessarily be able to invest significant development work in a 2.2+ stream of changes, so at best and if necessary it will be like a maintenance stream.  We may need to look to the community to help address any additional requirements on that stream beyond the bare minimum that the existing team's resource can contain.

These types of notes, and of course our public plans, are my effort to bring the community along.  This was also a topic of discussion at the Architecture meeting in Chicago.   I just don't want to be put in the position of having to advocate the virtues of Java 5.0 itself as a motivator for moving forward because I'm likely to end up pointing out some of my own concerns about why the language was changed in such dramatically complex way.  But most of our respective organizations voted in favor of this drastic change although I'm not sure that was ever well socialized.  Our primary reason for moving forward is that the language has moved forward and there are a growing set of clients who want to move forward along with it.  Without us doing our part, there will be no forward movement for anyone.   I don't think it's so clear that folks are losing anything more than we all lost when the JDKs stopped going to 1.4.x and went to 5.0 instead.  Perhaps one example is the use of EMF by Apache's Tuscany project which expects to be able to generate 5.0-based SDO APIs.   It will be another year before EMF is available as a release which means it will probably be almost two years before this shows up in commercial products; it seems not a stretch of the imagination to suppose that two years from now, commercial products will have a large client base expecting and even demanding rich support for Java 5.0.


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top