You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM> on 2006/05/01 19:45:24 UTC
Re: Javadoc lies
Hi Andrew,
Thanks to your excellent work on derby-1078, it appears that we use the
1.6 javac when compiling in a shell window whose JAVA_HOME points at a
1.6 installation. Thanks to your changes, the build targets tell the 1.6
compiler to regard pre-JDBC4 source as down-rev and to generate byte
code that will run on jdk1.3.
I ran the experiment you recommended: I compiled and then generated
javadoc all in a shell window whose JAVA_HOME pointed at jdk1.6. This
did not change the javadoc result. E.g., the javadoc still falsely
asserted that our JDBC3 DataSources implemented the JDBC4 Wrapper interface.
The result was not affected when I generated javadoc with the following
ant switch (also in a 1.6 shell window):
source="1.4"
Regards,
-Rick
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 4/28/06, acemccloudxx@comcast.net <ac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't know that the Mac fans on this list would be very
>> interested in having everything built with the 1.6 JDK.
>
>
> To clarify, the recent changes that went in with DERBY-1078 mean that
> you can build with 1.4, 1.5, or 1.6, and the resulting build will run
> on 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6.
>
> Rick, I think David's suggestion #2 may be the answer. Now that
> DERBY-1078 is fixed, you can build everything with the 1.6 compiler.
> What does 1.6 javadoc say if you compiled everything with the 1.6
> compiler?
>
> andrew
Re: Building with JDK 1.6 (was Re: Javadoc lies)
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Hi David,
I don't think we're quite where you want us to be. You still need the
ant.properties variable in order to signal the build that you want to
compile the JDBC4 support. The javadoc targets also switch based on the
presence of this variable. And the compatibility tests rely on this
variable to find the location of the 1.6 installation.
Regards,
-Rick
David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> This is great news (for how we build with JDK 1.6, not the javadoc :(
> ), I didn't know if this was completed. Thanks, Andrew!
>
> Should those of working with JDK 1.6 start using the JAVA_HOME
> technique rather than the ant.properties technique? Has BUILDING.txt
> been changed?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks to your excellent work on derby-1078, it appears that we use
>> the 1.6 javac when compiling in a shell window whose JAVA_HOME points
>> at a 1.6 installation. Thanks to your changes, the build targets tell
>> the 1.6 compiler to regard pre-JDBC4 source as down-rev and to
>> generate byte code that will run on jdk1.3.
>>
>> I ran the experiment you recommended: I compiled and then generated
>> javadoc all in a shell window whose JAVA_HOME pointed at jdk1.6. This
>> did not change the javadoc result. E.g., the javadoc still falsely
>> asserted that our JDBC3 DataSources implemented the JDBC4 Wrapper
>> interface.
>>
>> The result was not affected when I generated javadoc with the
>> following ant switch (also in a 1.6 shell window):
>>
>> source="1.4"
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Rick
>>
>> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/06, acemccloudxx@comcast.net <ac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I don't know that the Mac fans on this list would be very
>>>> interested in having everything built with the 1.6 JDK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To clarify, the recent changes that went in with DERBY-1078 mean that
>>> you can build with 1.4, 1.5, or 1.6, and the resulting build will run
>>> on 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6.
>>>
>>> Rick, I think David's suggestion #2 may be the answer. Now that
>>> DERBY-1078 is fixed, you can build everything with the 1.6 compiler.
>>> What does 1.6 javadoc say if you compiled everything with the 1.6
>>> compiler?
>>>
>>> andrew
>>
>>
>>
Building with JDK 1.6 (was Re: Javadoc lies)
Posted by "David W. Van Couvering" <Da...@Sun.COM>.
This is great news (for how we build with JDK 1.6, not the javadoc :( ),
I didn't know if this was completed. Thanks, Andrew!
Should those of working with JDK 1.6 start using the JAVA_HOME technique
rather than the ant.properties technique? Has BUILDING.txt been changed?
Thanks,
David
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks to your excellent work on derby-1078, it appears that we use the
> 1.6 javac when compiling in a shell window whose JAVA_HOME points at a
> 1.6 installation. Thanks to your changes, the build targets tell the 1.6
> compiler to regard pre-JDBC4 source as down-rev and to generate byte
> code that will run on jdk1.3.
>
> I ran the experiment you recommended: I compiled and then generated
> javadoc all in a shell window whose JAVA_HOME pointed at jdk1.6. This
> did not change the javadoc result. E.g., the javadoc still falsely
> asserted that our JDBC3 DataSources implemented the JDBC4 Wrapper
> interface.
>
> The result was not affected when I generated javadoc with the following
> ant switch (also in a 1.6 shell window):
>
> source="1.4"
>
> Regards,
> -Rick
>
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/06, acemccloudxx@comcast.net <ac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I don't know that the Mac fans on this list would be very
>>> interested in having everything built with the 1.6 JDK.
>>
>>
>> To clarify, the recent changes that went in with DERBY-1078 mean that
>> you can build with 1.4, 1.5, or 1.6, and the resulting build will run
>> on 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6.
>>
>> Rick, I think David's suggestion #2 may be the answer. Now that
>> DERBY-1078 is fixed, you can build everything with the 1.6 compiler.
>> What does 1.6 javadoc say if you compiled everything with the 1.6
>> compiler?
>>
>> andrew
>
>