Hi Jason,
I think the stumbling block was all the new interfaces that existing
JDBC interfaces return from the new methods (SQLXML, NClob, etc.). I
don't see how the patch addresses it. Essentially the patch bumps up
the version of our implementations to Java 1.6, but makes it
incompatible with Java 1.5 compile environment.
As a temporary solution I guess we can stub the missing interface
dependencies for Java 5 compilation purposes, making a small Maven
module with "provided" scope. But if we do, then we don't need to
change the existing inheritance hierarchy. We can simply implement the
missing methods.
Or did I overlook something obvious?
Cheers,
Andrus
On Jan 6, 2008, at 6:53 AM, Jason Dwyer wrote:
hi all,
its been a while since i've had much time to keep up with cayenne, but
have found a bit of space to flick through the dev mailing list in the
last couple of days, and came across this thread.
at first i thought 'bah, they wouldnt have broken the interfaces would
they'? then, re-checking out the source and hooking it up in eclipse
with default java ( 1.6.0-sun ), found exactly what kevin came across!
( however, i'll be more prosaic and not blame sun directly, i suspect
something/someone in the jcp came up with it...)
anyway, i had time to have a bit of a poke and a shuffle, and have
come
up with a rough-ish patch that i've attached to CAY-955, which _seems_
to be doing the trick at least in my linux/java 6/eclipse environment:
unit tests pass ok, but theres some ITests that fail ( not sure if
thats
due to my changes in the patch or if i hadnt set up the environment
for
it ).
it provides a shallow hierarchy that provides some abstract classes
for
Connection, DataSource, PooledDataSource and ResultSetMetaData, which
were the ones mostly affected by the inclusion of Wrapper in the
implements clause for each of these in java 6. these abstract classes
will obviously need filling out ( they're mostly just default auto-gen
method bodies ), but the patch should be a good start.
alas i dont think i'll have much more time to dig through cayenne
again
for a bit: back to the grind after the xmas break tomorrow, and it
keeps
me pretty busy, so if the patch is good, then great, otherwise, oh
well!
cheers,
j
On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 13:57 -0500, Kevin Menard wrote:
It's really unfortunate because Java 6 is ridiculously faster than
Java
5, at least on Windows. I have a group of functional tests that were
cut by 50% just by bumping the JDK version.
Oh well.
