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 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:25:00 GMT
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:21 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> 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.

I would say nice-to-have rather than *important*. Things I would term
*important* would be show-stoppers for a release and this IMO doesn't
fit that category.

Niall

>  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.
>
>  >
>  >  > 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


Mime
View raw message