You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> on 2003/08/16 23:17:19 UTC
[lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> +1 to RC3
>
> BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be built
> using 1.4 instead?
Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
could repeat with the -src jar.
Hen
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
"Phil Steitz" <ph...@steitz.com> writes:
>Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
>> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>>
>> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
>> under 1.2?
>FWIW, I have done this both ways with current sources -- build w/ 1.4,
>run tests using 1.2 and vice versa. Both work for me. I also ran
>1.4-compiled tests on 1.3 and that worked as well. I did this earlier
Please try the 1.3.1 JDK from blackdown as e.g. daedalus.apache.org. I have
had problems with 1.4 built jars from ibiblio (e.g. excalibur-components)
with this JDK.
For Turbine, I've decided to make both JDK 1.3.1 and JDK 1.4.2 built
jars available.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
"Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty silicon!"
-- AOL CD when played backwards (User Friendly - 200-10-15)
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
"Phil Steitz" <ph...@steitz.com> writes:
>Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
>> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>>
>> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
>> under 1.2?
>FWIW, I have done this both ways with current sources -- build w/ 1.4,
>run tests using 1.2 and vice versa. Both work for me. I also ran
>1.4-compiled tests on 1.3 and that worked as well. I did this earlier
Please try the 1.3.1 JDK from blackdown as e.g. daedalus.apache.org. I have
had problems with 1.4 built jars from ibiblio (e.g. excalibur-components)
with this JDK.
For Turbine, I've decided to make both JDK 1.3.1 and JDK 1.4.2 built
jars available.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
"Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty silicon!"
-- AOL CD when played backwards (User Friendly - 200-10-15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>
> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
> under 1.2?
FWIW, I have done this both ways with current sources -- build w/ 1.4,
run tests using 1.2 and vice versa. Both work for me. I also ran
1.4-compiled tests on 1.3 and that worked as well. I did this earlier
today thinking that I might see performance differences, but I did not
(i.e., the 1.2-compiled code seems to run as fast under 1.4 as the 1.4
compiled version. <disclaimer> This is based on just 2 runs with each
config so is by no means scientific. Also, our unit tests are obviously
not performance tests </disclaimer>).
Phil
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
>
>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+1 to RC3
>>>
>>>BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
>>>optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
>>
> built
>
>>>using 1.4 instead?
>>
>>Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
>>
>>Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
>>merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
>>could repeat with the -src jar.
>>
>>Hen
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>
> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
> under 1.2?
FWIW, I have done this both ways with current sources -- build w/ 1.4,
run tests using 1.2 and vice versa. Both work for me. I also ran
1.4-compiled tests on 1.3 and that worked as well. I did this earlier
today thinking that I might see performance differences, but I did not
(i.e., the 1.2-compiled code seems to run as fast under 1.4 as the 1.4
compiled version. <disclaimer> This is based on just 2 runs with each
config so is by no means scientific. Also, our unit tests are obviously
not performance tests </disclaimer>).
Phil
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
>
>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+1 to RC3
>>>
>>>BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
>>>optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
>>
> built
>
>>>using 1.4 instead?
>>
>>Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
>>
>>Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
>>merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
>>could repeat with the -src jar.
>>
>>Hen
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
There are known problems with binaries built on JDK 1.4 being run on JDK
1.2. The primary issue is that a JDK 1.4 class may have a more specific
signature than a JDK 1.2 method, so the JDK 1.4 compile will use the more
specific signature, which isn't there on JDK 1.2. I compile the Apache
James builds with JDK 1.3, and our javadocs with JDK 1.4.
--- Noel
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
How about the -target 1.1 flag to the 1.4 compiler?
Ant allows us to pass this, and apparantly 1.1 means JDK's 1.1->1.3. So we
would javadoc with 1.4 and build with 1.4 for 1.1->1.3.
No idea how much of a guarentee that is.
Hen
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>
> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
> under 1.2?
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to RC3
> > >
> > > BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> > > optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
> built
> > > using 1.4 instead?
> >
> > Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
> >
> > Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
> > merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
> > could repeat with the -src jar.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
There are known problems with binaries built on JDK 1.4 being run on JDK
1.2. The primary issue is that a JDK 1.4 class may have a more specific
signature than a JDK 1.2 method, so the JDK 1.4 compile will use the more
specific signature, which isn't there on JDK 1.2. I compile the Apache
James builds with JDK 1.3, and our javadocs with JDK 1.4.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
How about the -target 1.1 flag to the 1.4 compiler?
Ant allows us to pass this, and apparantly 1.1 means JDK's 1.1->1.3. So we
would javadoc with 1.4 and build with 1.4 for 1.1->1.3.
No idea how much of a guarentee that is.
Hen
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>
> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
> under 1.2?
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to RC3
> > >
> > > BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> > > optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
> built
> > > using 1.4 instead?
> >
> > Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
> >
> > Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
> > merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
> > could repeat with the -src jar.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
under 1.2?
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > +1 to RC3
> >
> > BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> > optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
built
> > using 1.4 instead?
>
> Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
>
> Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
> merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
> could repeat with the -src jar.
>
> Hen
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
under 1.2?
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > +1 to RC3
> >
> > BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> > optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
built
> > using 1.4 instead?
>
> Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
>
> Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
> merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
> could repeat with the -src jar.
>
> Hen
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org