The JDO RI Enhancer has not been updated to use JDK 1.5 class files as input. We did make several changes to the enhancer that allow a simple change to support new class file formats, but we have not run any tests to see if there are any issues.
Regards,
Craig
On Feb 25, 2005, at 4:31 AM, Priti Kulkarni wrote:
Hello Craig,Craig Russell
Please find the forwarded mail.
We are facing mentioned problem with our enhancer.
Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Priti
From: "David Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 25, 2005 4:14:25 AM PST
To: "'JDOcentral.com Message Board'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: JDO with JDK1.5 ( From JDOcentral.com Message Board )
I am pretty sure they got this resolved in the
Reference Enhancer. But I have not used it lately,
and I have not moved to JDK 1.5.
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED], I am sure he can
help you.
David Jordan
Object Identity, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: JDOcentral.com Message Board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 1:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JDO with JDK1.5 ( From JDOcentral.com Message Board )
davejordan,
kulkarni_priti has sent you this email from
http://www.jdocentral.com/forums/index.php.
Hello Dave,
As we know, earlier JDO Enahancer was built with JDK1.4 and now as JDK1.5
has been released, JDO must have got certified for JDK1.5 Now my questions
are ,
1. Having the JDO Enhancer of JDK1.4, Have you ever tried to compile and
enhance the classes with JDK1.5?
2. We are getting following exception : Exception in thread "main"
java.lang.VerifyError: (class: Test, method: main signature:
([Ljava/lang/String;)V) Illegal type in constant pool
while doing the above with our own enhancer.
If we change the major number of an enhanced class file as 49 then
everything works fine with JDK1.5.
We know that, The error is coming because of these VM changes that take
place in JDK 1.5 -the JVM spec has
changed so that LDC/LDC_W can load CONSTANT_Class constants - those
instructions are issued by the
1.5 compiler now, when you use a class literal.
3. Have JDO faced the same problem anytime? What did we do for JDO? Any
bytecode changes or major number change in the generated class file?
Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------
Please note that JDOcentral.com Message Board has no control over the
contents of this message.
---------------------------------------------------
Regards,
The JDOcentral.com Message Board team.
http://www.jdocentral.com/forums/index.php
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
