Im still not clear with the impact of the built sdk on application and I maybe mis understood for FM but thought it was ok to use it but not to built it only.
Thanks. Envoyé depuis un mobile Samsung <div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div><div>De : Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> </div><div>Date :21/01/2014 23:08 (GMT+00:00) </div><div>A : dev@flex.apache.org </div><div>Objet : Re: RE : Java 1.6 </div><div> </div> Right, people using flexmojos, java on server side and so on with Java 6 will have to migrate all to get all the system in the same version of Java. But it implies changes to flexmojos to get working with Java 7 (as Chris said). Maybe people could opt for a gradual migration and start only with flex, and they eventually can have problems with their departments if the migration plan is not solid. I think it's clear that Java 7 should be conquered, but maybe java 6 should stay here for a while to avoid disruptive escenarios... 2014/1/21 webdoublefx <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > Velocity is the only dependency have seen which made the build failed at > the moment. > > @Carlos, what kind of impact could it be on client applications ? I can > figure out some issues for FM / IDEs which uses the built java modules but > not for client app. > > > Envoyé depuis un mobile Samsung > > <div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div><div>De : Gordon Smith < > gosm...@adobe.com> </div><div>Date :21/01/2014 22:35 (GMT+00:00) > </div><div>A : dev@flex.apache.org </div><div>Objet : RE: Java 1.6 > </div><div> > </div> > Carlos, suppose it turns out that we can't be compatible with both 6 and > 7. (I hope that's not the case, but I don't think we know yet.) Are you > saying we have to stick with 6? Rather than do that, we should probably > instead have two branches and two builds if we can't have compatibility > with both. > > - Gordon > > -----Original Message----- > From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On Behalf > Of Carlos Rovira > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:03 PM > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: Java 1.6 > > I'd like to go Java 7, but in my case we have products in Java 6 that > can't be upgraded right now. I suppose that many people are in the same > situation. So I think compatibility with Java 6 is a must. > > > 2014/1/21 Gordon Smith <gosm...@adobe.com> > > > We should definitely fix the problems that make us incompatible with > > Java 7, and then make that our recommended version (and switch out > > build systems). But staying compatible with Java 6, if that's > > possible, would also be a good thing. > > > > - Gordon > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: aYo [mailto:a...@binitie.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:41 AM > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Java 1.6 > > > > The future is Java 7+, but I think we need to be 6 compatible for a > while. > > There will be lots of teams out there that will not be pleased if > > there is a sudden loss of support for 6. As you know, it can be > > seriously disruptive > > > > On Tue 21 Jan 2014 20:35:55 WAT, Alex Harui wrote: > > > More and more things are requiring Java 7. Java 6 standard support > > > is over. Should we just move to Java 7 or do we need to remain Java > > > 6 compatible? BTW, there appears to be errors when you try to get > > > Flex to build on Java 7. I'm looking into it now. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > -Alex > > > > > > > -- > > *aYo* > > www.ayobinitie.com > > mrbinitie.blogspot.com > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > Director de Tecnología > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > F: +34 912 94 80 80 > http://www.codeoscopic.com > http://www.directwriter.es > http://www.avant2.es > -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
