Go go go! Thanks for looking into this :) IIRC there is so much stuff fixed and changed from 5.2 - I think calling it 6.0 expresses this better than 5.3. Especially with the changes to the visitor interface.
cheers, Torsten On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm currently working on the migration to Java 8 in Debian and several > packages are broken due to the lack of invokedynamic support in BCEL 5.2 > (the dreaded ClassFormatException: Invalid byte tag in constant pool: > 18). I think it's high time for a release. Even if the current code > isn't perfect it's far better than BCEL 5.2 (there are ~60 issues fixed > in JIRA). > > The code on the trunk isn't fully compatible with the previous release > due to the addition of methods to the Visitor interface. By Commons > standards we would usually change the package, however I think it's safe > to keep the org.apache.bcel package as is. The Visitor interface is > never implemented directly, I have found that projects always extend the > EmptyVisitor class instead. I've rebuilt several projects using BCEL > (ant, ant-contrib, clirr, clirr-maven-plugin, ha-jdbc, jbossas, jibx, > mx4j, xalan, maven-shared-jar, robocode) and they all worked fine with > the current snapshot. > > The code on the trunk is numbered 6.0, are we ok with that or should we > use 5.3 for the next release? > > Emmanuel Bourg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
