commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: [logging] please check release candidate 1
Date Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:39:42 GMT
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:14 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 22:07 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 10:05 +0100, Boris Unckel wrote:

<snip>

> > > Second 1.4.2_10 is the actual version, for a new release I would prefer the
> > > latest compiler (even if there a just minor or no changes). JCL releases
> > > have a long life cycle, and will be widely spread, so it makes sence to
> > > compile with the latest available version.
> > 
> > sorry - my bad 
> > 
> > it got very late for me last night and i was too tired to check :(
> > 
> > when i cut logging releases i do two compile runs (one with 1.2 and one
> > with a 1.4 JVMs) and then assemble the jars. used the wrong JVM to
> > assemble them. 
> 
> Why is it necessary to use two different JVMs?

need a 1.4 JVM to compile the java.util stuff but the rest of the code
needs to run fine on earlier JVMs. 

javac settings will care of the differences in class formats but changes
to the system libraries mean that you should compile against the 1.2
java system libraries. this can be done either by using a 1.2 JSDK or by
using a later JSDK and setting bootclasspath appropriately. 

if we were confident that our unit tests had 100% code coverage then
compiling with a 1.4 JSDK would probably be safe enough. i'm not that
confident and every other JCL release i've cut has used 2 JSDKs. so, i'm
more confident to use the system i know works.

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message