Danny, can you clarify this? Are we saying that 1) the 2.0a3 binaries were compiled with 1.3 (but the source code could be compiled under 1.2), or, 2) the 2.0a3 source will only compile with JDK 1.3?
Charles Danny Angus wrote: > pgoldstein wrote: > > >>I'd like this detail to be someplace very obvious. Is there a >>consensus on this? > > > RTFM > > Peter _read_ the james homepage http://jakarta.apache.org/james/index.html > and you'll see it states "James requires Java 2 (either JRE 1.3 or 1.4 as of > 2.0a3)" > > James 2.0a3 will build and run under 1.3 or 1.4, I believe avalon > dependancies may limit this to 1.4 for 2.1x versions (head of cvs) Serge > hacked the db pool and build.xml to compile against the correct version of > JDBC for the JDK version being used. > > Up to 2.0a3 binary releases made by me were compiled by 1.3, newer releases > will be compiled by 1.4 on the principle that we should be using the latest > stable JDK for releases where possible. > > d. > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
