Ok, I now understand your point about using "-source 1.6" for documentation
purposes while keeping "-target 1.5" for Java5 compatibility. If Java5 is
what we decide upon to target, and we are intent upon choosing Java
version-specific implementations at runtime, I agree that we should definitely
set "-source 1.6" at a minimum.
Nevertheless, using a later JDK to build than you are targeting opens up the
possibility of unintended Java6 API references leaking into the source. I
realize that's exactly what you intended in this case, and use reflection to
choose the appropriate implementation for the runtime Java version. But
someone else might check in code that doesn't have such a check. Or you might
check it in yourself on accident. And the release coordinator would never
detect it at build time. Only if we ran tests under Java5 might we catch it
at runtime. More likely, we'd have to wait for some user to report it.
Again, I'm not against targeting Java6 if there's a compelling reason to do
so. I'm against generating release artifacts using a later JDK than we are
targeting.
Bottom line: get rid of the reflection. Either the performance improvement of
the Java6-specific getBytes(Charset) (along with other Java6-specific API) is
compelling enough to use it or we just deal with the Java5 getBytes(String).
The source/target values should be identical and release Java build version
should match the source/target or we risk a brittle build.
Jake
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:48:43 -0800
Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
No - I am actually using the Java 6 compiler and it is allowing
AbstractStringLayout to reference a method that is in Java 6 but not Java 5.
The code is actually testing if the method exists so it won't get an error
when running in Java 5 but will use a less efficient method instead. By
specifying the source we are documenting that Java 6 is the minimum compiler
version we support.
If specifying Java 6 for both source and target is what the majority thinks
is best I am OK with that. I actually have no pressing need to support Java 5
for my own purposes.
Ralph
On Feb 26, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
All "-source 1.6" does above and beyond 1.5 is allow for using "@Override"
on overridden interface methods, which is nice but not critical; certainly
no reason to switch to Java 6.
What you actually seem to be proposing to use "-target 1.6" because you wish
to bind to 1.6+ API. This will both prevent compilation with any JDK less
than 1.6 and allow for creating 1.6 compatible binaries under later JDKs.
If there is API in 1.6 that we simply can't live without to produce a
quality logging implementation, then go for it, since 1.5 is pretty outdated.
But if it's just minor stuff that could be worked around using existing 1.5
API, there are plenty of users stuck with JDK 1.5 that will be left out of
using Log4j2 for no good reason.
In any case, the bug is primarily in our release process rather than code.
It is due to the fact that we are generating official release artifacts
using a JDK (6 or 7) later than the specified target JDK (5). While javac
source/target allows for a flexible build system by not forcing everyday
users to install an older JDK in order to generate artifacts compatible with
documented target JDK, project release managers should *****always***** use
the documented target JDK to generate official release artifacts to avoid
accidentally introducing bindings to API that exists in later JDKs, but not
the documented target JDK that the project claims to be compatible with. Had
this been done, this issue would have been caught long before any official
release.
So, decide on a JDK to target and then actually use that JDK to generate
official release artifacts, rather than some arbitrary later one, and we'll
never run into this issue again.
Jake
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:24:50 -0800
Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Remko found a bug in AbstractStringLayout where the code actually requires
Java 6 to compile although it should run fine with Java 5. Does anyone have
a problem with setting the compile source setting to 1.6 for Log4j 2? That
is actually what I have been building all the releases with anyway.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
