commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [all] Showing the Java Version on component sites
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:14:50 GMT
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".

Niall

>  > Niall
>  >
>  >>  This is related to publishing versioned sites that I touched upon in
>  >>  another mail.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  >
>  >>  > BeanUtils is an example of the same source/target versions:
>  >>  >    http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/dependencies.html
>  >>  >    http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/project-summary.html
>  >>  >
>  >>  > My preference is to have it on the dependencies page, because I think
>  >>  > people are more likely to look there - but perhaps both places would
>  >>  > be good. I haven't had any feedback since I submitted the second
>  >>  > pacth, so If you think its a good idea for commons then it would be
>  >>  > good to vote for that JIRA bug:
>  >>  >
>  >>  > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPIR-80
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Niall

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


Mime
View raw message