On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:14 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 22:07 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 10:05 +0100, Boris Unckel wrote:
<snip> > > > Second 1.4.2_10 is the actual version, for a new release I would prefer > > > the > > > latest compiler (even if there a just minor or no changes). JCL releases > > > have a long life cycle, and will be widely spread, so it makes sence to > > > compile with the latest available version. > > > > sorry - my bad > > > > it got very late for me last night and i was too tired to check :( > > > > when i cut logging releases i do two compile runs (one with 1.2 and one > > with a 1.4 JVMs) and then assemble the jars. used the wrong JVM to > > assemble them. > > 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. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
