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.
-Alex On 11/21/15, 10:01 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >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) > >Chris > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@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 Java >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? > >Thanks, >-Alex > >
