commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [all] Showing the Java Version on component sites
Date Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:25:00 GMT
sebb wrote:
> On 09/03/2008, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
wrote:
>>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  >>  > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
wrote:
>>  >>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  >>  >>  > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
wrote:
>>  >>  >>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  >>  >>  >>  > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dennis Lundberg
<dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
>>  >>  >>  >>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  > I just re-published all the component
sites and notice that (by
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  > mistake) it had used a patched copy
of the
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  > maven-project-info-reports-plugin that
I have in my local repo
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  > (sorry!). Anyway I submitted a patch
to maven to include the Java
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  > version on the dependencies page. The
feedback I got was they prefer
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  > it on the project summary page - so
I submitted a patch for that as
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  > well.
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  >
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  > Logging is an example of using different
source/target versions:
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  >    http://commons.apache.org/logging/dependencies.html
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  >    http://commons.apache.org/logging/project-summary.html
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  The part about "It has been built using
Java 1.5" in the dependencies
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  report isn't accurate. 1.5 is the version
used (by you) to build and
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  publish the site. I used 1.4 when I did
the logging release, so having
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  anything else there is misleading. I think
that part should be removed.
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>  What extra value does it give to users,
providing it was correct?
>>  >>  >>  >>  >
>>  >>  >>  >>  > I could ask the same question of maven and the
Build-Jdk it puts in
>>  >>  >>  >>  > the manifest which is really mis-leading since
the source/target
>>  >>  >>  >>  > settings are missing - except here in commons.
>>  >>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>  >>  The Build-Jdk in this case is the actual JDK that
was used to produce
>>  >>  >>  >>  the jar file. So it is correct. Having the source
and target in there is
>>  >>  >>  >>  much better though, for the reasons you mention below.
>>  >>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>  >>  > My answer though is its a warning - since setting
the target option
>>  >>  >>  >>  > doesn't actually guarantee it will run on that
version if API's from
>>  >>  >>  >>  > later java versions have been used.
>>  >>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>  >>  But in this case it's not a warning. It the JDK that
was used to build
>>  >>  >>  >>  the *site* - not the jar file. That doesn't tell a
user anything.
>>  >>  >>  >
>>  >>  >>  > OK looks like we're mis-communicating here - what exactly
did you mean
>>  >>  >>  > by "providing it was correct" in your original question?
I took it to
>>  >>  >>  > mean "providing it was the value used to build the jar
for the
>>  >>  >>  > release".
>>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>  Right, that's what I meant.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > OK well that was the question I was answering - not if it wasn't
>>  >>  > correct which I didn't disagree with.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Great, so do we agree on this summary?
>>  >
>>  > No not really - the source and target versions don't necessarily
>>  > relate to the release either. Take codec - Henri just bumped that up
>>  > to 1.4 - but the Codec 1.3 release was (I assume) JDK 1.3 compatible.
>>
>>
>> I was asking, because I wanted to fix and close MPIR-80.
>>
>>  We really do need properly versioned sites, for your patch to be used
>>  without the risk of misinformation.
>>
> 
> I hope we can all agree that it is important for the user to be able
> to quickly discover which version of the JVM is required to run a
> particular release of Commons Foo.

Yes we agree.

> Whether this is done automatically from the appropriate source, or
> whether this is done by manually editting a list of versions is not
> important as far as the end-user is concerned; all they care about is
> that Commons Foo 1.3 will run on Java 1.3 and Commons Foo 2.0 requires
> Java 7 as a minimum.

At this point in time it seems that automating this comes with a few 
hazards, that needs to be fixed. Until that is done I propose that we 
advertise this manually in one of the site files.

> 
>>  > Niall
>>  >
>>  >>  - It is good to put the "source" and "target" version parameters for the
>>  >>  compiler plugin in the reports.
>>  >>
>>  >>  - It is bad to put the JDK version in the reports, because it is too
>>  >>  difficult to get the correct value for it.
>>  >
>>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>  > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dennis Lundberg
>>
>>
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
Dennis Lundberg

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


Mime
View raw message