Borland do not intend to support JDK 1.4 with JBuilder 5!
John Smith
How convenient for Borland...
Jonathan Sachs
>They will require all their customers to upgrade to JBuilder 6.
>How convenient for Borland...
Do you find this surprising?...
Send email to jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> They will require all their customers to upgrade to JBuilder 6.
No. Using JDK 1.4 is not mandatory. In fact, it has changed from 1.3
in so many respects that I'd recommend against it for production code.
What next, are you going to complain that Microsoft want VS6 users to
buy VS.Net to write .Net applications?
> How convenient for Borland...
Yeah, like the rest of the industry they release new products instead
of just giving out patches to old products in eternity.
Elana Larson
One of JBuilder's main features is the ability to plug-in new JDKs. This
feature is listed in JBuilder's datasheet
(http://www.borland.com/jbuilder/jb5/datasheet.pdf). Furthermore, nobody was
complaining about anything while JDK 1.4 was in beta. However, JDK 1.4 was
released almost two months ago!
And one more thing: The fact the Microsoft screws people over and over
doesn't mean it's OK for other companies to do it. Everyone should condemn
Microsoft for its unfair ways.
"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.wil...@ergo.no> wrote in message
news:u663i2...@ergo.no...
John McGrath [TeamB]
> One of JBuilder's main features is the ability to plug-in
> new JDKs. This feature is listed in JBuilder's datasheet
> (http://www.borland.com/jbuilder/jb5/datasheet.pdf).
> Furthermore, nobody was complaining about anything while
> JDK 1.4 was in beta. However, JDK 1.4 was released almost
> two months ago!
But why would you expect that JBuilder 5 would ever support JDK 1.4?
The JDK switching feature does allow you to switch between JDKs, but
that does not mean that a particular version of JBuilder will support
every subsequent JDK version that is ever released.
When a new version of the EJB specification comes along, I do not
assume that vendors will automatically support it in older version of
their application servers. When a new graphics file format is
released, I do not assume that the company that produces my graphics
editor will release support for it in previous versions of the program.
Why do you assume that Borland would support Java 1.4 in older versions
of JBuilder?
--
Regards,
John McGrath [TeamB]
---------------------------------------------------
Before sending me e-mail, please read:
http://www.JPMcGrath.net/newsgroups/e-mail.html
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> One of JBuilder's main features is the ability to plug-in new JDKs. This
> feature is listed in JBuilder's datasheet
> (http://www.borland.com/jbuilder/jb5/datasheet.pdf). Furthermore, nobody was
> complaining about anything while JDK 1.4 was in beta. However, JDK 1.4 was
> released almost two months ago!
I am talking about this:
assert
A nice, new keyword which tool released prior to its inclusion have
_no idea_ about how to handle. Whether that product is JBuilder,
Visual Café, VisualAge, JDK 1.3.1 or whatever.
The statement about JDK plugin feature doesn't necessarily reflect all
caveats associated with it, like that Borland's compiler cannot (and
AFAIK shall not) understand class file versions higher that that which
it's certified against.
Elana Larson
whenever standards/specifications change, if the software house wants to
remain competitive (and in business), it needs to update its products.
And please don't understand me the wrong way - I'm not saying that from now
till the end of time Borland must support all future JDKs. But when the
changes are relatively limited (like JDK 1.3 to JDK 1.4), and according to
Borland's statement, I would expect Borland to issue a patch or subversion
(like JBuilder 5.1) to handle these changes.
"John McGrath [TeamB]" <ng...@JPMcGrath.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.170b9fe14...@newsgroups.borland.com...
John McGrath [TeamB]
> Because whenever standards/specifications change, if the
> software house wants to remain competitive (and in business),
> it needs to update its products.
Borland has, and continues to update its products. JBuilder 6, which
was also released before JDK 1.4, has some support for it. It handles
the class file changes, the assert keyword, and generally allows you to
program with JDK 1.4. <speculation> And I am reasonably confident
there will be a future version of JBuilder that provides even better
support for JDK 1.4. </speculation>
> But when the changes are relatively limited (like JDK 1.3 to
> JDK 1.4), and according to Borland's statement, I would expect
> Borland to issue a patch or subversion (like JBuilder 5.1) to
> handle these changes.
I don't think that "relatively limited" is an accurate characterization
of the changes. As far as I can tell, this is the biggest change that
has been made to Java since 1.0. It is, I believe, the first time that
a new keyword was added to the language.
Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB]
> I don't think that "relatively limited" is an accurate characterization
> of the changes. As far as I can tell, this is the biggest change that
> has been made to Java since 1.0. It is, I believe, the first time that
> a new keyword was added to the language.
The addition of inner and nested classes (1.1, I think) was pretty
substantial too, but I would certainly agree that there are more
significant changes than any time since then. I suspect this is the first
time the class file format has changed, since even inner classes were done
in a way that was runtime backward compatible.
1.5 is going to cause the same sort of issues with its support for
Generics, but if the schedule remains consistent that may not be an issue
for another 2-3 years.
--
Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB]
John McGrath [TeamB]
> The addition of inner and nested classes (1.1, I think) was
> pretty substantial too, but I would certainly agree that
> there are more significant changes than any time since then.
> I suspect this is the first time the class file format has
> changed, since even inner classes were done in a way that
> was runtime backward compatible.
I agree. That class format change was why I consider this to be bigger
than the inner class change.
> 1.5 is going to cause the same sort of issues with its
> support for Generics,
I suspect it may be a very easy change. The changes for generics
appear to be entirely in the compiler, and the generated code runs
using the Java 1.4 VM.
> but if the schedule remains consistent that may not be an issue
> for another 2-3 years.
I am guessing that it will be out some time late next year. Even with
a 3 month slip like they had with Merlin, Tiger should be available
before Christmas.
Joi Ellis [TeamB]
> What are you talking about?!?
> One of JBuilder's main features is the ability to plug-in new JDKs. This
> feature is listed in JBuilder's datasheet
> (http://www.borland.com/jbuilder/jb5/datasheet.pdf). Furthermore, nobody was
> complaining about anything while JDK 1.4 was in beta. However, JDK 1.4 was
> released almost two months ago!
Actually, they were. When one of the later betas came out, (it was b2 or b3,
I forget which) Sun changed the class version and that's when people first
started posting about it. So it happened while JDK 1.4 was still in beta.
All this happened after JB6 was released, and even though that was during
the beta period, Sun doesn't allow its licensees to ship Sun's betas, and
as often as Sun changes things during the betas, it simply isn't wise
for Borland or anyone else to develop products against betas or to claim
compatiblity with them. (That's assuming sun's licensees are allowed to do
that much.)
> And one more thing: The fact the Microsoft screws people over and over
> doesn't mean it's OK for other companies to do it. Everyone should condemn
> Microsoft for its unfair ways.
I've stopped using Microsoft development tools in 1985 after my last
horrible experience with their tech support and their anti-standards
arrogance. I have been completely boycotting Microsoft since 1992 when
I found out from my local store exactly why my local store wans't stocking
OS2 or any microsoft competitors, and why I couldn't buy a name-brand
PC without MSDos or MS Windows already on it. I no longer buy complete
systems, I buy parts and assembly my own, because I REFUSE to give
Bill Gates one cent of my money. Microsoft is not allowed in my home,
period. I even gave up my beloved Quicken.
--
Joi Ellis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com/
No direct email, please.
For best results, post on news server newsgroups.borland.com!
Newsgroup Guidelines: http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
Only posts which violate the rules in guide.html are subject to cancelation.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Because that's exactly what being in the software business means. Because
> whenever standards/specifications change, if the software house wants to
> remain competitive (and in business), it needs to update its products.
And software is "updated" by releasing _new versions_. Which is what
Borland and everyone else do. You can't compile to the CLR using
Visual Studio 6, you can't compile to J2SE 1.4 using JBuilder 5.
The point here is that J2SE 1.4 IS NOT MANDATORY. It's not part of the
technology that JBuilder 5 targets, which is J2SE 1.3.
I'd wager that Borland has been in the software industry a wee bit
longer than you, and has a decent idea about "what being in the
software business means": You indicate whether you agree with that
idea by your purchasing decisions.