Chris, Any chance we can get this done soon? I'd like to start pulling jburg from Maven.
Thanks, -Alex On 11/22/15, 8:10 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >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 >>> >>> >> >
