Thanks Chris. I'll switch over to the Maven Jburg when you let us know it is ready.
-Alex On 11/22/15, 3:33 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Ok then I must have skipped that when staging the release ... well at >least the release pocess is a lot simpler outside the ASF ... guess I >should manage go get a jburg patch version out quite soon ... probably >I'll also have to stage the jburg maven plugin then too. Will check that. > >Chris > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. November 2015 06:15 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: AW: [FALCONJX] Java Versions > >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 >> >> >
