On 2/8/11 5:59 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/8/11 1:43 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2/8/11 10:32 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Stefan Seelmann<[email protected]>
wrote:
I found something over at stackoverflow to define different compile
versions for main and test code [4], I'll test that.
Obviously that won't work because JDK5 doesn't have a Java6 compiler.
So what I would suggest is to copy the classes from [5] with the
original package names and license/copyright headers to our
junit-addons module. As the classes have the ALv2 license header we
are safe to copy them. An advantage is that once we switch to Java6 we
can drop those classes and use the com.mycila:mycila-junit dependency.
Thoughts?
Go for it.
I'm not sure we can drop Java 5 now, many users are still using it...
One more reason why they should switch to Java 6. Java 5 is way slower.
IMO we should not have to keep building for it. Java 7 is out. We're
supporting 6& 7.
Frankly, I wish we can drop Java 5 completely, but I'm afraid it's still
widely used in enterprises :
http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=61645
Even if this poll is not realistic, it says that 34% of the companies are
still using Java 5 :/ :
"Question four: At work, what JVM do you target compilation for?
Java 6 won again, with 247 responses (58%); Java 1.4 got 33 (8%), Java 5 got
146 (34%). One person said they used Retroweaver for clients with 1.4."
I hear you. I'd rather focus on the majority. And soon this will
change. By the time we're out the door with a GA it's not going to be
a matter of contention.
When hunting I always used to target slightly ahead of a running
animal. Why? Because I like killing bambi. Well you get my point ...
It's no sweat off my back because I'm just not dealing with the
overhead of this. Thought it might spare others managing it some pain.
All in all, switching to Java 6 is not *that* bad. i'm just wondering if
the problem we have with the concurrent test tooling (which requires
Java6) can't be workarounded by requiring the code to be compiled using
Java 5 and run with Java 6.
If not, then, well, let's go for Java 6
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
