sebb wrote:
On 16/06/2009, Nathan Beyer <ndbe...@apache.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:37 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Harmony M10 reports the following properties:
>
> java.class.version=50.0
Just checking, but you did use the 1.5 artifacts and not the 1.6 ones,
correct? That should be 49.0 for the 1.5 artifacts.
I used the link "Apache Harmony 5.0M10 JDK for 32-bit Windows" from
http://harmony.apache.org/download.cgi.
SHA1 = 3e5e00e9e01c864e2c2e578016703899cbb336a5
java -version shows:
Apache Harmony Launcher : (c) Copyright 1991, 2009 The Apache Software
Foundation or its licensors, as applicable.
java version "1.5.0"
pre-alpha : not complete or compatible
svn = r782693, (Jun 12 2009), Windows/ia32/msvc 1310, release build
http://harmony.apache.org
BTW, the same applied to the previous version I tried:
Apache Harmony Launcher : (c) Copyright 1991, 2008 The Apache Software Foundatio
n or its licensors, as applicable.
java version "1.5.0"
pre-alpha : not complete or compatible
svn = r761593, (Apr 3 2009), Windows/ia32/msvc 1310, release build
http://harmony.apache.org
I see the same thing - java.class.version is 50.0. I see in
vm_properties.cpp of drlvm we do the following:
properties.set_new("java.class.version", EXPAND(CLASSFILE_MAJOR_MAX) "."
EXPAND(CLASSFILE_MINOR_MAX));
where CLASSFILE_MAJOR_MAX is set to 50. I think that's because drlvm
supports Java 6 class file formats even in the HEAD (5.0) branch.
Should the property indicate the class level supported by the VM (as it
is set by the VM) or the actual class library API level?
The spec defines this property as: "java.class.version - Java class
format version number"
I do notice that we set java.specification.version, java.version and
java.runtime.version properties to indicate we are running a Java 1.5
class library. Perhaps leaving java.class.version at 50.0 as an
indication that classes with 50.0 format can be executed on those builds
makes sense. It's an indication of the acceptable maximum class file
format version rather than the API level supported (which is defined by
the other properties mentioned). I would be inclined to leave it as is.
Regards,
Oliver
> java.vm.version=11.2.0
That's the version of DRLVM. Why, I don't know, but that's what it is.
What do you think it should be?
For the Sun JVMs, it is e.g.
java.vm.version=1.5.0_18-b02
>
> I would expect the class version to be 49.0, and the java.vm.version
> looks rather odd.
> Should I raise a JIRA for these?
>
--
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
