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 21:28:57 GMT
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:40 PM, 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.
>>  >
>>  > My patch makes no difference to what you term mis-information. For
>>  > example, if someone adds/removes/changes version of a component's
>>  > dependency AFTER a release and re-publishes the site then whats
>>  > published no longer relates to the last release. The same is true for
>>  > the whole site - e.g. adding a new feature and documenting it in a
>>  > user guide and re-publishing.
>>
>>  Right, sorry for the confusion. The misinformation doesn't come from
>>  your patch, but from the fact that it is possible to re-deploy a site,
>>  thereby altering the content that was published at release time.
>>
>>
>>  > For me though, having the site reflect whats currently in trunk and
>>  > not the latest release is OK and I wouldn't term it mis-information -
>>  > its the latest information.
>>  >
>>  > I did that patch originally because Sebb kept asking for the java
>>  > version to be on the dependencies page. However given his recent
>>  > comments it clearly doesn't meet his requirements. I think its quite
>>  > nice and adding it does no harm, but I'm less interested in it now if
>>  > you just want to close it as WONT FIX,
>>
>>  I'd like to keep the issue open, because I think it is adds value to the
>>  reports. I will however postpone it until Maven has better support for
>>  versioned sites.
> 
> Is that something thats in progress - or just on a wish list for the future?

Currently it is not a piece of software, but rather a configuration best 
practice (hopefully). We're currently trying it out over in Maven land.

> 
> Niall
> 
>>  > Niall
>>  >
>>  >>  > 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


Mime
View raw message