On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's written to be 1.3 compliant. > > > > It appears to be so if one uses Maven, however I just tried it with > > Eclipse, and there are some classes which are not compatible with 1.3. > > > > RuntimeException does not have RuntimeException([String,]Throwable) > > constructors, nor do Exception.getCause() String.matche(String) exist > > in 1.3. > > Okay, so how about we say it's 1.4 compliant? It's a brand new > library, so there really are no existing users. The ones I have are > already using it based on what's in SVN, so they're probably okay with > the 1.4edness (it's a word, I promise). Should I update the POM to > override what we have in the parent?
Your choice - you could either rework to make it compliant with 1.3, or update the POM to 1.4. > This brings up an interesting > question, though. Why isn't this flagged? I said it's supposed to be > 1.3 compliant to maven. Shouldn't the maven build fail if I've got > stuff in there that's not 1.3 compliant? > The compiler version flags don't affect the run-time library that is used. I don't know if there are plans to fix this. The build would fail if the source used a newer syntax (such as generics), but otherwise it does nothing as far as I know. The target version just affects the class version. See this comment from Simon Kitching: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-173?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12557925#action_12557925 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
