You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> on 2013/05/20 17:06:07 UTC
[monitoring] Java version
I'm looking at the [monitoring] sandbox component. (Notwithstanding some
complex approach) it can't be built with a JDK > 1.5 due to the interface
additions made to JDBC in Java 1.6. As 1.5 is EOL and this is a sandbox
component that may well never see the light of day anyway, any objections
to upgrading to 1.6 and adding the missing methods to the JDBC
implementations so we can at least built the thing simply?
Matt
Re: [monitoring] Java version
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
Both good points, Romain! If anyone decides to mess with [monitoring] in
the future hopefully they'll be remembered.
Matt
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi
>
> you can still add the methods without @Override, it will make it happy for
> both jvm. That said using proxies is another solution which works better in
> general for such cases IMO.
>
> *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
>
>
>
> 2013/5/20 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>
>> Hrm, actually I misspoke. I was thinking of the breaking JDBC changes in
>> Java 7. Same difference except I'm not willing to push [monitoring] that
>> far yet. Disregard and I'm building with Java 6 :P
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm looking at the [monitoring] sandbox component. (Notwithstanding
>> some
>> > complex approach) it can't be built with a JDK > 1.5 due to the
>> interface
>> > additions made to JDBC in Java 1.6. As 1.5 is EOL and this is a sandbox
>> > component that may well never see the light of day anyway, any
>> objections
>> > to upgrading to 1.6 and adding the missing methods to the JDBC
>> > implementations so we can at least built the thing simply?
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [monitoring] Java version
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi
you can still add the methods without @Override, it will make it happy for
both jvm. That said using proxies is another solution which works better in
general for such cases IMO.
*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
*Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/5/20 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> Hrm, actually I misspoke. I was thinking of the breaking JDBC changes in
> Java 7. Same difference except I'm not willing to push [monitoring] that
> far yet. Disregard and I'm building with Java 6 :P
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm looking at the [monitoring] sandbox component. (Notwithstanding some
> > complex approach) it can't be built with a JDK > 1.5 due to the interface
> > additions made to JDBC in Java 1.6. As 1.5 is EOL and this is a sandbox
> > component that may well never see the light of day anyway, any objections
> > to upgrading to 1.6 and adding the missing methods to the JDBC
> > implementations so we can at least built the thing simply?
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
Re: [monitoring] Java version
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
Hrm, actually I misspoke. I was thinking of the breaking JDBC changes in
Java 7. Same difference except I'm not willing to push [monitoring] that
far yet. Disregard and I'm building with Java 6 :P
Matt
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking at the [monitoring] sandbox component. (Notwithstanding some
> complex approach) it can't be built with a JDK > 1.5 due to the interface
> additions made to JDBC in Java 1.6. As 1.5 is EOL and this is a sandbox
> component that may well never see the light of day anyway, any objections
> to upgrading to 1.6 and adding the missing methods to the JDBC
> implementations so we can at least built the thing simply?
>
> Matt
>