Sorry, no idea. A separate repo sounds cleaner, but I haven't spent as much time as you thinking about this, so perhaps I'm wrong. It would be nice to not require Java 9 unless you want to compile the StackWalker stuff...
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I know how to implement the StackWalker code but I don’t quite know how to > get it into the build. The main build needs to keep using Java 7 but of > course the StackWalker stuff needs to be compiled with Java 9. Technically, > I know how I could do that except I have no idea how it would work in > Jenkins. It would also mean that everyone would be required to have Java 9 > installed in order to do the build. > > An alternate approach would be to have the Java 9 specific classes in a > separate repo with its own build. It would have to be “released” but we > really wouldn’t need or want to release those jars to Maven Central as they > would only be needed in the Log4j build - the classes would be copied into > the Log4j jar. > > If any of you know we can set a Jenkins variable to point to the latest > Java 9 version that could solve the problem. > > Ralph > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >
