Unfortunately I re-discovered, that JBurg is built with Ant and I will have to dig into how to build again. And I want to ask the maintainer what the minimum java version is ... if it's 1.6 then there is no need to give up on supporting 1.6 for nothing. And I'm only going to do this work once.
Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. November 2015 15:49 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [FALCONJX] Java Versions 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 >> >> >
