Mailing-List: contact ivy-user-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 btv1==834d5975ba7==zbedell@nycourts.gov designates 207.29.128.88 as permitted
 sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Subject: Re: Antwort: Multiple release "streams" for different JDK's?
From: Zachary Bedell <zbedell@nycourts.gov>
In-Reply-To: 
 <OF8B072533.9D7B27B3-ONC1257B5F.0054F52F-C1257B5F.004A7CCC@gebit.de>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:05:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7A3DB14E-B035-472B-B6EA-B4B55696417B@nycourts.gov>
References: <B358684F-23F6-42FB-9B10-35EB43C90069@nycourts.gov>
 <OF8B072533.9D7B27B3-ONC1257B5F.0054F52F-C1257B5F.004A7CCC@gebit.de>
To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org

I think I like the sound of that. =20

I should be able to setup a resolver chain both with & without the JRE-7 =
stuff, list the 7 repository first, and allow the chain to fall down to =
the default JRE-6 tree for anything which hasn't been built under 7 yet, =
right?  So essentially anything built out to 7 overlays and overrides =
the stuff that's in 6, but anything not in 7 just comes from 6 as it =
currently does.  And any clients not using the 7 chain are none the =
wiser.

I'll give that a shot.  Thanks very much for the suggestion!

-Zac

On May 2, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Carsten.Pfeiffer@gebit.de wrote:

> Hi Zac,
>=20
> if you don't want to change the library names nor the revision number, =
how=20
> about=20
> putting the libs into distinct repositories? Then use different =
resolver=20
> chains depending
> on which jre version you want to have.=20
>=20
> Cheers
> Carsten