> I do not see why this entire project would need to go to 1.5 or 1.6, unless
> Generics are
> added to the core interface. The maven.compile.target property could be set
> on the different
> modules, so that the core interface is compiled for 1.4.2 and the JSR199 code
> is compiled for 1.6.
T
I do not see why this entire project would need to go to 1.5 or 1.6, unless
Generics are
added to the core interface. The maven.compile.target property could be set on
the different
modules, so that the core interface is compiled for 1.4.2 and the JSR199 code
is compiled for 1.6.
On May 17, 20
On May 17, 2011, at 12:17, "Jörg Schaible" wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>> Thanks for checking, Christian.
>>
>>> I have moved my code base from my old version of jci 1.1 to the trunk and
>>> everything looks good. I did have trouble building the trunk, because
>>> the fam module is not inclu
Torsten,
Can improvements to the current code base be rescheduled to 1.2? This
project has
been without a release for some time and those projects that depend on JCI 1.1
need a release of the current functionality for their own releases.
If that is not an option, can we at least get SNAPSHO
Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Thanks for checking, Christian.
>
>> I have moved my code base from my old version of jci 1.1 to the trunk and
>> everything looks good. I did have trouble building the trunk, because
>> the fam module is not included in the module list. I have opened JCI-66
>> to address
Torsten,
I do not need 1.4 compatibility.
-Christian
On May 13, 2011, at 12:06 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Thanks for checking, Christian.
>
>> I have moved my code base from my old version of jci 1.1 to the trunk and
>> everything looks good. I did have trouble building the trunk, because
>> It is - that is the jsr199 compiler that needs to be finished.
>> It would be great to finish that and not look back.
>> Although I made some progress I don't think I have the time.
>
> AFAICT, JSR199 also requires Java 1.6?
Indeed. But I am quite positive very few people (if any) use the javac
On 13 May 2011 11:09, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> We really need to drop the javac support. It was a hack. But releasing
>>> it as is will be a bit of a pain as it depends on an old jvm to just
>>> pass the tests.
>>
>> Is it really not possible to implement javac support with a more recent JVM?
>
>
>> We really need to drop the javac support. It was a hack. But releasing
>> it as is will be a bit of a pain as it depends on an old jvm to just
>> pass the tests.
>
> Is it really not possible to implement javac support with a more recent JVM?
It is - that is the jsr199 compiler that needs to be
On 13 May 2011 08:47, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Hm ... going through the issues.
>
> We really need to drop the javac support. It was a hack. But releasing
> it as is will be a bit of a pain as it depends on an old jvm to just
> pass the tests.
Is it really not possible to implement javac support wi
Hm ... going through the issues.
We really need to drop the javac support. It was a hack. But releasing
it as is will be a bit of a pain as it depends on an old jvm to just
pass the tests.
Maybe we should shoot for a 2.0 after all and clean things up. *sigh*
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:06, Torsten
Thanks for checking, Christian.
> I have moved my code base from my old version of jci 1.1 to the trunk and
> everything looks good. I did have trouble building the trunk, because the
> fam module is not included in the module list. I have opened JCI-66 to
> address that. I will take a look
Torsten,
I have moved my code base from my old version of jci 1.1 to the trunk and
everything looks good. I did have trouble building the trunk, because the fam
module is not included in the module list. I have opened JCI-66 to address
that. I will take a look at 1.0/1.1 compatibility late
13 matches
Mail list logo
