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: AW: AW: [FALCONJX] Java Versions
Date Thu, 04 Feb 2016 20:00:00 GMT

Any chance we can get this done soon?  I'd like to start pulling jburg
from Maven.


On 11/22/15, 8:10 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:

>Unfortunately I re-discovered, that JBurg is built with Ant and I will
>have to dig into how to build again. And I want to ask the maintainer
>what the minimum java version is ... if it's 1.6 then there is no need to
>give up on supporting 1.6 for nothing. And I'm only going to do this work
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
>Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. November 2015 15:49
>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [FALCONJX] Java Versions
>Thanks Chris.  I'll switch over to the Maven Jburg when you let us know
>it is ready.
>On 11/22/15, 3:33 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>Ok then I must have skipped that when staging the release ... well at
>>least the release pocess is a lot simpler outside the ASF ... guess I
>>should manage go get a jburg patch version out quite soon ... probably
>>I'll also have to stage the jburg maven plugin then too. Will check that.
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
>>Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. November 2015 06:15
>>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>Betreff: Re: AW: [FALCONJX] Java Versions
>>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>
>>>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)
>>>-----Ursprüngliche 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
>>>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