Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> >> > I just re-published all the component sites and notice that (by
>> >> > mistake) it had used a patched copy of the
>> >> > maven-project-info-reports-plugin that I have in my local repo
>> >> > (sorry!). Anyway I submitted a patch to maven to include the Java
>> >> > version on the dependencies page. The feedback I got was they prefer
>> >> > it on the project summary page - so I submitted a patch for that as
>> >> > well.
>> >> >
>> >> > Logging is an example of using different source/target versions:
>> >> > http://commons.apache.org/logging/dependencies.html
>> >> > http://commons.apache.org/logging/project-summary.html
>> >>
>> >> The part about "It has been built using Java 1.5" in the dependencies
>> >> report isn't accurate. 1.5 is the version used (by you) to build and
>> >> publish the site. I used 1.4 when I did the logging release, so having
>> >> anything else there is misleading. I think that part should be removed.
>> >> What extra value does it give to users, providing it was correct?
>> >
>> > I could ask the same question of maven and the Build-Jdk it puts in
>> > the manifest which is really mis-leading since the source/target
>> > settings are missing - except here in commons.
>>
>> The Build-Jdk in this case is the actual JDK that was used to produce
>> the jar file. So it is correct. Having the source and target in there is
>> much better though, for the reasons you mention below.
>>
>>
>> > My answer though is its a warning - since setting the target option
>> > doesn't actually guarantee it will run on that version if API's from
>> > later java versions have been used.
>>
>> But in this case it's not a warning. It the JDK that was used to build
>> the *site* - not the jar file. That doesn't tell a user anything.
>
> OK looks like we're mis-communicating here - what exactly did you mean
> by "providing it was correct" in your original question? I took it to
> mean "providing it was the value used to build the jar for the
> release".
Right, that's what I meant.
OK well that was the question I was answering - not if it wasn't
correct which I didn't disagree with.
Great, so do we agree on this summary?
- It is good to put the "source" and "target" version parameters for the
compiler plugin in the reports.
- It is bad to put the JDK version in the reports, because it is too
difficult to get the correct value for it.
<snip/>
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
