Well if it's compiled with 1.8 I could just re-compile with 1.6 and deploy as I was the one that released that jar. But are you sure it's bytecode major version is 52 I know that I build most stuff with 1.8, but I usually set the compiler to output max 51 (Java 7)
Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 20. November 2015 19:35 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: [FALCONJX] Java Versions For compatibility with FB, we tell the Java compiler to compile Falcon with for Java 1.6 compatibility. Meanwhile, the various jars used by Falcon seem to be ok with using Java 1.7 to build Falcon to emit that 1.6-compatible output. Until now. I just tried switching from the Jburg jar on SourceForge to the one in Maven and found that the Maven version was compiled with Java 1.8. I'm not a Java expert, so please help me out here. My understanding is that in order to use this Java 1.8 jar, we would have to require that all people who want to compile Falcon must use Java 1.8, but because we are still producing Java 1.6-compatible jars and Jburg itself is only used to compile Falcon (it isn't used when Falcon is compiling MXML and AS) then we'd still be backward compatible with FB and the fact it runs in a version of Eclipse that uses Java 1.6. Consumers of FlexJS could run Java 1.6, Java 1.7 or Java 1.8. Only folks working on the compiler or testing FalconJX releases would need Java 1.8. Is my analysis correct? Are we willing to force all folks compiling Falcon to move to Java 1.8? Or should we stick with the older Jburg for a while longer? Thanks, -Alex
