[Laszlo-dev] What Java version should we support? [Was: duplicate declaration in build.xml ?]

[Max Carlson]

I think the original 1.5 restriction was due to Jython not working with 
later versions...

Regards,
Max Carlson
OpenLaszlo.org

On 1/29/10 9:47 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> The last time Java broke our code, I updated our sources, except for those that I could not (e.g., the ones that JavaCC generates).  The ones I could not, get their own<javac>  with an explicit source version.  I see no reason not to continue the same policy going forward.
>
> Right now, our sources compile just fine with 1.6.
>
> On 2010-01-29, at 11:22, Henry Minsky wrote:
>
>> If things compile in the latest Java, I think we might as well use it.
>>
>> I guess the question is if, down the road, some new Java comes out which
>> breaks something, if we're gonna
>> want to be able to specify the version again..
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:13 AM, P T Withington<ptw at pobox.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> [OpenLaszlo Developers:
>>>
>>> I am in the process of updating our build tools.  Henry noticed a duplicate
>>> definition in our build.xml specifying that our Java source is 1.5
>>> (incorrectly put there by me).  But this makes me wonder:  do I need this
>>> default at all?  Is there any reason not to default to the underlying Java?]
>>>
>>> Hm...
>>>
>>> Ok, I put that there because I wanted to allow using Java 1.6 (the default
>>> Java on my Mac), and I thought, from reading Ben's comments in the build
>>> file regarding what Java we support that I needed to set these defaults so
>>> the<javac>  tasks would default to compiling from/to Java 1.5.
>>>
>>> We do have a couple of places where we explicitly direct javac to compile
>>> 1.4 sources (our javacc seems to generate 1.4 Java and you get a bunch of
>>> warnings if you try to compile it as 1.5).
>>>
>>> I just tried removing these declarations and compiling and everything went
>>> just fine.  Can you think of any reason that we need to restrict our JAva
>>> source to being 1.5?
>>>
>>> My feeling is that if we encounter incompatibilities, we either update our
>>> Java source, or, as we did with the javacc output, explicitly call out the
>>> sources that must be compiled with legacy Java versions.
>>>
>>> It _might_ be more important to specify a default target, if we want our
>>> binary distributions to be able to run on Java 1.5 installations, but my
>>> reading is that 1.5 was made obsolete by Sun last November.
>>>
>>> [Off-topic:  Why does Sun have these confusing versions where Java is 1.X
>>> but the JDK is X.0?]
>>>
>>> On 2010-01-29, at 10:36, Henry Minsky wrote:
>>>
>>>> It doesn't look like it got changed in the change though...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:37 PM, P T Withington<ptw at pobox.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That was part of my change. One is supposed to say .target.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 21:14, Henry Minsky<hminsky at laszlosystems.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I just noticed my build.xml has this duplicated line
>>>>>
>>>>>    <property name="ant.build.javac.source" value="1.5" />
>>>>>    <property name="ant.build.javac.source" value="1.5" />
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Henry Minsky
>>>>> Software Architect
>>>>> <hminsky at laszlosystems.com>hminsky at laszlosystems.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Henry Minsky
>>>> Software Architect
>>>> hminsky at laszlosystems.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Henry Minsky
>> Software Architect
>> hminsky at laszlosystems.com
>
>