Mailing-List: contact users-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Users List" <users@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Configure compile JDK vs. compile-test JDK
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:18:52 +0100
Message-ID: <F0D7281DAB048B438E8F5EC4ECEFBDDC506E31@esmail.elsag.de>
Thread-Topic: Configure compile JDK vs. compile-test JDK
Thread-Index: AcXpmOpDHZ/fJdISTjqrS6djrICR0QAGzyCg
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schaible?= <Joerg.Schaible@Elsag-Solutions.com>
To: "Maven Users List" <users@maven.apache.org>

Hi Brett,

Brett Porter wrote on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 4:59 AM:

> We seem to have missed that use case after we changed from
> the per-goal configuration model to the lifecycle bindings.
>=20
> I think our medium term plan is to make the compiler
> configuration a separate component referenced from that
> plugin, and then the test one can have its own configuration,
> but defaults to the normal compile configuration. I'll get it
> into JIRA as two separate items.

it can be worse though. In XStream we build by default for 1.3 target, =
but some classes must be compiled for 1.5 (e.g. support for =
Annotations). To ensure portability we must run the tests once with with =
JDK 1.3 and JDK 1.5. With Ant no problem within one project ... I am not =
sure about the best strategy to set this up within M2.

- J=F6rg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org