db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Building with JDK 1.6 (was Re: Javadoc lies)
Date Mon, 01 May 2006 18:22:59 GMT
Hi  David,

I don't think we're quite where you want us to be. You still need the 
ant.properties variable in order to signal the build that you want to 
compile the JDBC4 support. The javadoc targets also switch based on the 
presence of this variable. And the compatibility tests rely on this 
variable to find the location of the 1.6 installation.

Regards,
-Rick

David W. Van Couvering wrote:

> This is great news (for how we build with JDK 1.6, not the javadoc :( 
> ), I didn't know if this was completed.  Thanks, Andrew!
>
> Should those of working with JDK 1.6 start using the JAVA_HOME 
> technique rather than the ant.properties technique?  Has BUILDING.txt 
> been changed?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks to your excellent work on derby-1078, it appears that we use 
>> the 1.6 javac when compiling in a shell window whose JAVA_HOME points 
>> at a 1.6 installation. Thanks to your changes, the build targets tell 
>> the 1.6 compiler to regard pre-JDBC4 source as down-rev and to 
>> generate byte code that will run on jdk1.3.
>>
>> I ran the experiment you recommended: I compiled and then generated 
>> javadoc all in a shell window whose JAVA_HOME pointed at jdk1.6. This 
>> did not change the javadoc result. E.g., the javadoc still falsely 
>> asserted that our JDBC3 DataSources implemented the JDBC4 Wrapper 
>> interface.
>>
>> The result was not affected when I generated javadoc with the 
>> following ant switch (also in a 1.6 shell window):
>>
>>             source="1.4"
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Rick
>>
>> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/06, acemccloudxx@comcast.net <acemccloudxx@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I don't know that the Mac fans on this list would be very 
>>>> interested in having everything built with the 1.6 JDK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To clarify, the recent changes that went in with DERBY-1078 mean that
>>> you can build with 1.4, 1.5, or 1.6, and the resulting build will run
>>> on 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6.
>>>
>>> Rick, I think David's suggestion #2 may be the answer. Now that
>>> DERBY-1078 is fixed, you can build everything with the 1.6 compiler.
>>> What does 1.6 javadoc say if you compiled everything with the 1.6
>>> compiler?
>>>
>>> andrew
>>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message