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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
