On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:35 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 18:39 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:14 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > > > Why is it necessary to use two different JVMs? > > > > need a 1.4 JVM to compile the java.util stuff but the rest of the code > > needs to run fine on earlier JVMs. > > > > javac settings will care of the differences in class formats but changes > > to the system libraries mean that you should compile against the 1.2 > > java system libraries. this can be done either by using a 1.2 JSDK or by > > using a later JSDK and setting bootclasspath appropriately. > > > > if we were confident that our unit tests had 100% code coverage then > > compiling with a 1.4 JSDK would probably be safe enough. i'm not that > > confident and every other JCL release i've cut has used 2 JSDKs. so, i'm > > more confident to use the system i know works. > > Ok, sounds entirely reasonable. I agree there are corner cases where > target doesn't solve the problem (eg the new StringBuffer overloaded > methods in more recent JVMs). > > It might be nice to note this somewhere, eg as a comment in the > build.xml file or similar.
the latest build.xml now supports dual compilation (1.2 and 1.4). the ant task should be run by a 1.2 JDK and a build.property set the a 1.4 compiler. there's some documentation but i hope to return to this later (unless anyone else beats me to it). i'm now trying to think about whether to add a task to build the source distributions. one advantage is that it would automatically standardise the EOLs. one disadvantage is that it would require using exec to call svn directly. another is that it should really be loaded from a tag which would mean another build property. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
