Apache Jenkins Server  <[email protected]> writes:

> See <https://builds.apache.org/job/Derby-trunk/1431/changes>
>
> Changes:
>
> [kahatlen] DERBY-5840: Silence deprecation warnings in the network client
>
> [kahatlen] DERBY-5840: Compile network client with source and target level 1.5

[...]

> compile:
>     [javac] Compiling 142 source files to 
> <https://builds.apache.org/job/Derby-trunk/ws/trunk/classes>
>     [javac] 
> <https://builds.apache.org/job/Derby-trunk/ws/trunk/java/client/org/apache/derby/client/am/LogicalCallableStatement.java>:52:
>  error: LogicalCallableStatement is not abstract and does not override 
> abstract method getObject(String,Map) in CallableStatement
>     [javac] public class LogicalCallableStatement
>     [javac]        ^
>     [javac] 
> <https://builds.apache.org/job/Derby-trunk/ws/trunk/java/client/org/apache/derby/client/am/LogicalCallableStatement.java>:271:
>  error: name clash: getObject(int,Map<String,Class<?>>) in 
> LogicalCallableStatement and getObject(int,Map) in CallableStatement have the 
> same erasure, yet neither overrides the other
>     [javac]     public Object getObject(int i, Map<String, Class<?>> map) 
> throws SQLException {
>     [javac]                   ^
>     [javac] 
> <https://builds.apache.org/job/Derby-trunk/ws/trunk/java/client/org/apache/derby/client/am/LogicalCallableStatement.java>:359:
>  error: name clash: getObject(String,Map<String,Class<?>>) in 
> LogicalCallableStatement and getObject(String,Map) in CallableStatement have 
> the same erasure, yet neither overrides the other
>     [javac]     public Object getObject(String parameterName, Map<String, 
> Class<?>> map) throws SQLException {
>     [javac]                   ^
>     [javac] 3 errors
>
> BUILD FAILED
> <https://builds.apache.org/job/Derby-trunk/ws/trunk/build.xml>:630: The 
> following error occurred while executing this line:
> <https://builds.apache.org/job/Derby-trunk/ws/trunk/java/client/build.xml>:65:
>  Compile failed; see the compiler error output for details.

I'm looking into this.

FWIW, the tinderbox did not fail.

-- 
Knut Anders

Reply via email to