The last time Java broke our code, I updated our sources, except for those that I could not (e.g., the ones that JavaCC generates). The ones I could not, get their own <javac> with an explicit source version. I see no reason not to continue the same policy going forward.
Right now, our sources compile just fine with 1.6. On 2010-01-29, at 11:22, Henry Minsky wrote: > If things compile in the latest Java, I think we might as well use it. > > I guess the question is if, down the road, some new Java comes out which > breaks something, if we're gonna > want to be able to specify the version again.. > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:13 AM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [OpenLaszlo Developers: >> >> I am in the process of updating our build tools. Henry noticed a duplicate >> definition in our build.xml specifying that our Java source is 1.5 >> (incorrectly put there by me). But this makes me wonder: do I need this >> default at all? Is there any reason not to default to the underlying Java?] >> >> Hm... >> >> Ok, I put that there because I wanted to allow using Java 1.6 (the default >> Java on my Mac), and I thought, from reading Ben's comments in the build >> file regarding what Java we support that I needed to set these defaults so >> the <javac> tasks would default to compiling from/to Java 1.5. >> >> We do have a couple of places where we explicitly direct javac to compile >> 1.4 sources (our javacc seems to generate 1.4 Java and you get a bunch of >> warnings if you try to compile it as 1.5). >> >> I just tried removing these declarations and compiling and everything went >> just fine. Can you think of any reason that we need to restrict our JAva >> source to being 1.5? >> >> My feeling is that if we encounter incompatibilities, we either update our >> Java source, or, as we did with the javacc output, explicitly call out the >> sources that must be compiled with legacy Java versions. >> >> It _might_ be more important to specify a default target, if we want our >> binary distributions to be able to run on Java 1.5 installations, but my >> reading is that 1.5 was made obsolete by Sun last November. >> >> [Off-topic: Why does Sun have these confusing versions where Java is 1.X >> but the JDK is X.0?] >> >> On 2010-01-29, at 10:36, Henry Minsky wrote: >> >>> It doesn't look like it got changed in the change though... >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:37 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> That was part of my change. One is supposed to say .target. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 21:14, Henry Minsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> I just noticed my build.xml has this duplicated line >>>> >>>> <property name="ant.build.javac.source" value="1.5" /> >>>> <property name="ant.build.javac.source" value="1.5" /> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Henry Minsky >>>> Software Architect >>>> <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Henry Minsky >>> Software Architect >>> [email protected] >> >> > > > -- > Henry Minsky > Software Architect > [email protected]
