Seems so -- at least that's what the instructions at http://wiki.openlaszlo.org/SubversionBuildInstructions used to say. But we don't use Jython any more (haven't for years), so I'm going to remove that restriction (and update the instructions).
I don't think we should be requiring a version of Java that is at end-of-life. On 2010-01-29, at 14:24, Max Carlson wrote: > I think the original 1.5 restriction was due to Jython not working with later > versions... > > Regards, > Max Carlson > OpenLaszlo.org > > On 1/29/10 9:47 AM, P T Withington wrote: >> 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] >> >>
