expected behavior when running 10.11 against jvm previous to 1.6?

[Mike Matrigali <mi...@sbcglobal.net>]

If it is not too hard I wonder if we should disable derby from booting 
if the jvm is not 1.6 or higher, with hopefully a clear message saying
why the boot is failing.

Re: expected behavior when running 10.11 against jvm previous to 1.6?

[Rick Hillegas <ri...@oracle.com>]

On 5/10/13 12:16 PM, Mike Matrigali wrote:
> thanks for the explanation, didn't realize it was going to be so 
> dramatic.  I am actually less worried if this is the case, what I did
> not want to happen is for someone to seemingly boot fine and then just
> have stuff mysteriously fail.
>
> If someone has a easy good idea, fine, but not worth much effort.  At 
> a minimum we should just cut/paste the various errors you get when you 
> try
> to boot on wrong jvm into a release note and a JIRA entry so that a 
> search on the error could lead someone quickly to understanding what is
> going on.  I'll add this todo to the release note issue I posted and
> can take on the work once we are much closer to having a 10.11 release
> with all the changes in.
Thanks, Mike. That sounds like a good idea.
>
> On 5/10/2013 11:39 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> On 5/10/13 11:17 AM, Mike Matrigali wrote:
>>> If it is not too hard I wonder if we should disable derby from booting
>>> if the jvm is not 1.6 or higher, with hopefully a clear message saying
>>> why the boot is failing.
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> I'm not sure we can do much here. The compiled Derby byte code will be
>> Java 6 byte code. If you try to run Java 6 byte code on an older VM you
>> will get a java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError. This error is raised
>> as the VM tries to load Derby, that is, long before we have an
>> opportunity to inject an explanatory message.
>>
>> But perhaps someone else has a clever idea.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick
>>
>
>

Re: expected behavior when running 10.11 against jvm previous to 1.6?

[Mike Matrigali <mi...@sbcglobal.net>]

thanks for the explanation, didn't realize it was going to be so 
dramatic.  I am actually less worried if this is the case, what I did
not want to happen is for someone to seemingly boot fine and then just
have stuff mysteriously fail.

If someone has a easy good idea, fine, but not worth much effort.  At a 
minimum we should just cut/paste the various errors you get when you try
to boot on wrong jvm into a release note and a JIRA entry so that a 
search on the error could lead someone quickly to understanding what is
going on.  I'll add this todo to the release note issue I posted and
can take on the work once we are much closer to having a 10.11 release
with all the changes in.

On 5/10/2013 11:39 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
> On 5/10/13 11:17 AM, Mike Matrigali wrote:
>> If it is not too hard I wonder if we should disable derby from booting
>> if the jvm is not 1.6 or higher, with hopefully a clear message saying
>> why the boot is failing.
>>
>>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I'm not sure we can do much here. The compiled Derby byte code will be
> Java 6 byte code. If you try to run Java 6 byte code on an older VM you
> will get a java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError. This error is raised
> as the VM tries to load Derby, that is, long before we have an
> opportunity to inject an explanatory message.
>
> But perhaps someone else has a clever idea.
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>

Re: expected behavior when running 10.11 against jvm previous to 1.6?

[Rick Hillegas <ri...@oracle.com>]

On 5/10/13 11:17 AM, Mike Matrigali wrote:
> If it is not too hard I wonder if we should disable derby from booting 
> if the jvm is not 1.6 or higher, with hopefully a clear message saying
> why the boot is failing.
>
>
Hi Mike,

I'm not sure we can do much here. The compiled Derby byte code will be 
Java 6 byte code. If you try to run Java 6 byte code on an older VM you 
will get a java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError. This error is raised 
as the VM tries to load Derby, that is, long before we have an 
opportunity to inject an explanatory message.

But perhaps someone else has a clever idea.

Thanks,
-Rick