flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: AW: [FALCONJX] Java Versions
Date Sun, 22 Nov 2015 05:14:50 GMT
Yeah, it complained about 52.  I'm running 51.  No need to go all the way
back to 1.6 since I think it is fair to require 1.7 to compile Falcon, but
up to you.


On 11/21/15, 10:01 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:

>Well if it's compiled with 1.8 I could just re-compile with 1.6 and
>deploy as I was the one that released that jar. But are you sure it's
>bytecode major version is 52 I know that I build most stuff with 1.8, but
>I usually set the compiler to output max 51 (Java 7)
>-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
>Gesendet: Freitag, 20. November 2015 19:35
>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>Betreff: [FALCONJX] Java Versions
>For compatibility with FB, we tell the Java compiler to compile Falcon
>with for Java 1.6 compatibility.
>Meanwhile, the various jars used by Falcon seem to be ok with using Java
>1.7 to build Falcon to emit that 1.6-compatible output.
>Until now.  I just tried switching from the Jburg jar on SourceForge to
>the one in Maven and found that the Maven version was compiled with Java
>1.8.  I'm not a Java expert, so please help me out here.  My
>understanding is that in order to use this Java 1.8 jar, we would have to
>require that all people who want to compile Falcon must use Java 1.8, but
>because we are still producing Java 1.6-compatible jars and Jburg itself
>is only used to compile Falcon (it isn't used when Falcon is compiling
>MXML and AS) then we'd still be backward compatible with FB and the fact
>it runs in a version of Eclipse that uses Java 1.6.  Consumers of FlexJS
>could run Java 1.6, Java 1.7 or Java 1.8.  Only folks working on the
>compiler or testing FalconJX releases would need Java 1.8.
>Is my analysis correct?  Are we willing to force all folks compiling
>Falcon to move to Java 1.8?  Or should we stick with the older Jburg for
>a while longer?

View raw message