activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Artemis and Eclipse...
Date Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:15:58 GMT
Cool... I've pushed the Javadoc changes.. no more -Xdoclint... and
minimal JDK = 1.7

We can bump it back to 1.8 whenever needed again.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:43 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
> Added javadoc:javadoc to the PR builder job...
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:19 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I found a way to not require bumping the version of maven. just add
>> annotation processing to the plugin on the.
>>
>>
>> But if someone could please add javadoc goal on the PR builds and
>> build checks please? that's the only change needed for this now.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have fixed all the javadoc issues on this PR:
>> >
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22
>> >
>> >
>> > But I had to use annotation to remove the javadoc annotations on the
>> > maven-plugin. And the current maven used on the PR build is not
>> > compatible with it:
>> >
>> > https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So,
>> >
>> > @Daniel Can you bump the version at the commit build. Can you also add
>> > javadoc as a goal to the build, so we won't break javadoc ever again
>> > without being noticed
>> > @JustinBertram: Can you do the same
>> > @BruceSnyder: Can you add me to the PR user's as I requested on the
>> > private list, so I won't need to ask Daniel and Justin again for this
>> > kind of thing? :)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I will send another commit to bump the minimal Maven version.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> > <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Both the PR build and the commit build should include a javadoc build
>> >> once we fix those. It's quite easy to break javadoc refs. You just add
>> >> javadocs, refactor stuff and boom.. javadoc gets broken.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> True,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways
to
>> >>>> not require that setting
>> >>>
>> >>> I started looking at this.  Definitely a lot more involved than I was
>> expecting.  It was definitely the right call to add the setting to get the
>> release out.
>> >>>
>> >>> At this point a “mvn -Pdev install” will now work without that
>> setting.   That’s a good start.   The javadoc run in artemis-website now
>> will run without an error. (plenty of warnings though)   However, javadoc
>> in the individual modules still fails.   Since the javadoc in the modules
>> is part of the deploy (and release) process, we still need the switch.
>> >>>
>> >>> One step at a time…..
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining
Java 7
>> >>>>> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say
should
>> >>>>> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
>> >>>>> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android,
etc).
>> >>>>> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside
of
>> >>>>> Artemis?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> >>>>> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy.
This was
>> >>>>>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time
to evaluate
>> >>>>>> any other options back then.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc
and
>> >>>>>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not
sure yet how
>> >>>>>> difficult that would be though
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter
with
>> Java8
>> >>>>>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with
Java7. You can
>> >>>>>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option,
but that
>> only
>> >>>>>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes
javadoc
>> processing
>> >>>>>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand
the new
>> config
>> >>>>>>> option.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the
javadoc to
>> >>>>>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things
to work on 7
>> or 8
>> >>>>>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles
to apply
>> >>>>>>> the config selectively.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Robbie
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8
to the equation
>> was
>> >>>>>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps
there is a
>> better
>> >>>>>>>> way to solve that.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific
to JDK
>> 1.8.  (I
>> >>>>>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped
>> something.. but
>> >>>>>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the
codebase)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis
now loads fairly
>> easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I
>> haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required
to build, but
>> java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7
>> runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8
>> to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.  
I assume that is not
>> needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the
>> ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things
>> about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>> >>>>>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> >>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>> >>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> >>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>> >>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> >>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Hiram Chirino
>> >>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Clebert Suconic
>> >>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> >>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Daniel Kulp
>> >>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Clebert Suconic
>> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>



-- 
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message