On 22/01/2014 17:12, Alex Harui wrote:
On 1/22/14 7:49 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
At least as the default. No harm in also offering legacy version(s).
But more work if you are suggesting that the release manager has to
produce convenience binaries in both Java 6 and Java 7. The installer
pro
On 1/22/14 7:49 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>At least as the default. No harm in also offering legacy version(s).
But more work if you are suggesting that the release manager has to
produce convenience binaries in both Java 6 and Java 7. The installer
probably also has to change, and it is anot
At least as the default. No harm in also offering legacy version(s).
EdB
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Tom Chiverton wrote:
> We should be setting an example and moving to something that isn't full of
> holes :-)
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 22/01/2014 15:37, Alex Harui wrote:
>>
>> I'm ok with that, b
We should be setting an example and moving to something that isn't full
of holes :-)
Tom
On 22/01/2014 15:37, Alex Harui wrote:
I'm ok with that, but an alternate plan is just to have Jenkins run Java
6.
On 1/22/14 3:44 AM, "Tom Chiverton" wrote:
>On 22/01/2014 09:52, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>> IF we need two separate builds for the binaries, I can set it up.
>> Either on thebuilds@a.o machine
>I think that would be best. Then at least we'll know if we broke
>something :-)
I'm ok with that, but a
On 22/01/2014 09:52, Erik de Bruin wrote:
IF we need two separate builds for the binaries, I can set it up.
Either on thebuilds@a.o machine
I think that would be best. Then at least we'll know if we broke
something :-)
Tom
One side note. You should be able to have different versions of Java
installed.
-Mark
No I'm on Win7 64bit and using Java 1.7 for a while now.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:34 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Java 1.6
Hi,
I been compiling with Java 1.7 for about a year on OSX an
. Januar 2014 00:17
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: RE : RE : Java 1.6
>
> Im still not clear with the impact of the built sdk on application and I
> maybe mis understood for FM but thought it was ok to use it but not to built
> it only.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
endet: Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2014 00:17
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: RE : RE : Java 1.6
Im still not clear with the impact of the built sdk on application and I maybe
mis understood for FM but thought it was ok to use it but not to built it only.
Thanks.
Envoyé depuis un mobile Sa
Hi,
> OK, I got the SDK to build with Java 7. Could somebody still using Java 6
> give it a try?
Current develop branch compiles fine with 1.6 and 1.7 (for me).
> Do we continue to ship binary release compiled for Java 6?
Does it actually have any effect?
What may make more of a difference is
Hi,
And in the interest of future compatibility I just tried out Java 1.8. It
compiles but you get a few extra warnings.
[javac] warning: [options] source value 1.5 is obsolete and will be removed
in a future release
[javac] Note: Some input files use or override a deprecated API.
Not fu
I drop an email last week with stack trace, can repost tomorrow if needed
Envoyé depuis un mobile Samsung
Message d'origine De : Justin Mclean
Date :21/01/2014 23:34 (GMT+00:00)
A : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: Java 1.6
Hi,
I been compiling with Java 1.7 for ab
On 1/21/14 3:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> No, it got me when I finally upgraded my Mac. According to [1], it is
>>an
>> injection that you should see when you go the latest Java 7 JDK (0_51).
>
>Odd I'm running on a brand new laptop (OSX 10.9.1) but it installed Java
>1.7.0_10. Not
Hi,
> No, it got me when I finally upgraded my Mac. According to [1], it is an
> injection that you should see when you go the latest Java 7 JDK (0_51).
Odd I'm running on a brand new laptop (OSX 10.9.1) but it installed Java
1.7.0_10. Not 100% sure of the Java version on my previous laptop but
On 1/21/14 3:42 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Also I notice that it's using the "-source 1.4" option so does using Java
>7 actually make any difference?
Not sure either, but it wasn't compiling on Java 7 and now it will.
-Alex
On 1/21/14 3:33 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I been compiling with Java 1.7 for about a year on OSX and not run into
>any issues. Is this a windows only issue?
No, it got me when I finally upgraded my Mac. According to [1], it is an
injection that you should see when you go the latest Ja
Hi,
Also I notice that it's using the "-source 1.4" option so does using Java 7
actually make any difference?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
I been compiling with Java 1.7 for about a year on OSX and not run into any
issues. Is this a windows only issue?
When compiling velocity I see:
java.home = /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.7.0_10.jdk/Contents/Home/jre
The enum issues just come up as warnings not errors and it still p
00:00)
A : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: RE : Java 1.6
Right, people using flexmojos, java on server side and so on with Java 6
will have to migrate all to get all the system in the same version of Java.
But it implies changes to flexmojos to get working with Java 7 (as Chris
said). Maybe people
g
>
> Message d'origine De : Gordon Smith <
> gosm...@adobe.com> Date :21/01/2014 22:35 (GMT+00:00)
> A : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : RE: Java 1.6
>
>
> Carlos, suppose it turns out that we can't be compatible with both 6 and
> 7. (I hope that
t; - Gordon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Carlos Rovira
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:03 PM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Java 1.6
>
> I'd like to go Java 7, but in my case
have compatibility
>with both.
>
>- Gordon
>
>-Original Message-
>From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On Behalf
>Of Carlos Rovira
>Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:03 PM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Java 1.6
>
>I'd like to go
Message d'origine De : Gordon Smith
Date :21/01/2014 22:35 (GMT+00:00)
A : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : RE: Java 1.6
Carlos, suppose it turns out that we can't be compatible with both 6 and 7. (I
hope that's not the case, but I don't think we know yet.) Are yo
e compatibility with both.
- Gordon
-Original Message-
From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Carlos Rovira
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:03 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Java 1.6
I'd like to go Java 7, but in my case we have product
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:41 AM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Java 1.6
>
> The future is Java 7+, but I think we need to be 6 compatible for a while.
> There will be lots of teams out there that will not be pleased if there is
> a sudden loss of support f
>
>- Gordon
>
>-Original Message-
>From: aYo [mailto:a...@binitie.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:41 AM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Java 1.6
>
>The future is Java 7+, but I think we need to be 6 compatible for a
>while. There will be lots of
lto:a...@binitie.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:41 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Java 1.6
The future is Java 7+, but I think we need to be 6 compatible for a while.
There will be lots of teams out there that will not be pleased if there is a
sudden loss of support for 6. As you
The future is Java 7+, but I think we need to be 6 compatible for a
while. There will be lots of teams out there that will not be pleased
if there is a sudden loss of support for 6. As you know, it can be
seriously disruptive
On Tue 21 Jan 2014 20:35:55 WAT, Alex Harui wrote:
More and more th
29 matches
Mail list logo
