Re: Java editor

Hi Jan, I ran master + PR-331 + PR-336 through a quick spin. I successfully did a small refactoring (method rename) in the JNA codebase (the same as the one that resulted in exceptions in the previous spin). All runs works without exceptions (the JDK8 without nb-javac did not offer refactoring

Re: Java editor

Argh!, I forgot to rm -rf $HOME/.netbeans/dev !! Seems to be working now. Thanks, Antonio P.S.: Intructions for others wishing to try out the jdk-javac branch in their github forks: a) Fetch from upstream git fetch b) Create a local branch named "jdk-javac" from Apache's jdk-javac git

Re: Java editor

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Antonio wrote: > Hi, > > In order to test this jdk-javac branch, shall I compile with JDK9? Or may > I compile with JDK8 and then run on top of JDK9? > Compile with JDK8 (the build scripts don't support compiling on 9). The build will

Re: Java editor

Hi, In order to test this jdk-javac branch, shall I compile with JDK9? Or may I compile with JDK8 and then run on top of JDK9? Thanks, Antonio El 17/12/17 a las 09:20, Jan Lahoda escribió: Hi, I've updated the jdk-javac branch (in the incubator-netbeans repository) to run on JDK 8 even

Re: Java editor

Hey Jan, Am Sonntag, den 17.12.2017, 21:48 +0100 schrieb Jan Lahoda: > Thanks Matthias. Thanks for the tests. I'll look at the exceptions, > although I cannot promise all of them are fixable (in NetBeans). > Also, if > you'd have specific steps to reproduce the Assertionerror on > Assert:155, >

Re: Java editor

Sure, makes sense, let’s leave it the way you have done it now. Would be good to have a list of all the issues that need to be fixed for javac from JDK 9 to work perfectly. By the way, is there anything blocking us from doing a VOTE thread for the Beta release at this point? To me, seems like

Re: Java editor

Hi Geertjan, On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > It seems that even when I start up on JDK 9, I get a notification message > that I should install nb-javac for "improved Java editing experience". > > I think if JDK 9 is used, since

Re: Java editor

Thanks Matthias. Thanks for the tests. I'll look at the exceptions, although I cannot promise all of them are fixable (in NetBeans). Also, if you'd have specific steps to reproduce the Assertionerror on Assert:155, that'd be helpful. On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Matthias Bläsing <

Re: Java editor

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 11:18 Geertjan Wielenga, < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I think if JDK 9 is used, since javac from the JDK is then used, we should > leave it at that and not tell the user to install nb-javac. > That's not what Jan's original message says - JDK javac only used

Re: Java editor

Another link for those interested in understanding the background of this discussion: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Java+Editor+Using+JDK+javac Gj On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > It seems that ev

Re: Java editor

It seems that even when I start up on JDK 9, I get a notification message that I should install nb-javac for "improved Java editing experience". I think if JDK 9 is used, since javac from the JDK is then used, we should leave it at that and not tell the user to install nb-javac. Gj On Sun, Dec

Re: Java editor

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Overview%3A+nb-javac Gj On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Peter Steele wrote: > Is there anything anywhere saying why netbeans needs its own java compiler > (nb-javac) What features require this? I'm just surprised that

Re: Java editor

Is there anything anywhere saying why netbeans needs its own java compiler (nb-javac) What features require this? I'm just surprised that netbeans was ever built with a custom javac. On 17 Dec 2017 11:03, "Geertjan Wielenga" wrote: It's great and works for me

Re: Java editor

It's great and works for me and complies with the instructions we have received re nb-javac, i.e., users must explicitly choose to install it and agree to its licensing terms. I have updated the Beta planning page to show the solution via the most important dialog boxes:

Re: Java editor

Sorry to jump in here. May not be clear on the following, so please excuse if I am off topic, etc. On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:20:41 +0100 Jan Lahoda wrote: > Hello, > > Today, we were talking with Jarda (jtulach) and Geertjan about what > do we do with the Java support for the

Re: Java editor

Hi, this sounds like a good plan. So +1 from me. Thank you. Matthias Am Dienstag, den 12.12.2017, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Jan Lahoda: > Hello, > > Today, we were talking with Jarda (jtulach) and Geertjan about what > do we > do with the Java support for the beta release. > > I think the

Re: Java editor

With #326 only the nb-javac GPL warnings remain in verify-libs-and-licenses. Next stop: LICENSE/NOTICE/DEPENDENCIES/README. Cheers, Antonio https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/326 El 13/12/17 a las 12:45, Antonio escribió: Let's get that verifyLibsAndLicenses.txt crystal clear!

Re: Java editor

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Neil C Smith wrote: > +1 from me as well, with one somewhat self-centred caveat - I assume that > derivative IDEs not bound by Apache distribution restriction can ship > nb-javac included as normal without this behaviour having any outward

Re: Java editor

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Antonio wrote: > +1 as well. > > El 12/12/17 a las 19:20, Jan Lahoda escribió: > >> [...] >> Are there any comments/objections/help offers to this proposal? >> > > I'll have some spare time during this week and the next. But I'll need > some

Re: Java editor

+1 as well. El 12/12/17 a las 19:20, Jan Lahoda escribió: [...] Are there any comments/objections/help offers to this proposal? I'll have some spare time during this week and the next. But I'll need some clear goals/instructions to be effective. Cheers, Antonio

Re: Java editor

+1 from me as well, with one somewhat self-centred caveat - I assume that derivative IDEs not bound by Apache distribution restriction can ship nb-javac included as normal without this behaviour having any outward effect? I agree with Geertjan that this direction is very promising. Best wishes,

Re: Java editor

+1 from me as well. This direction is very promising. Gj On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Sven Reimers wrote: > Hi all, > > With JDK 10 approaching and 11 already on the horizon - I think this is an > awesome plan.. > > +1 > > Sven > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:20 PM,

Re: Java editor

Hi all, With JDK 10 approaching and 11 already on the horizon - I think this is an awesome plan.. +1 Sven On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > Hello, > > Today, we were talking with Jarda (jtulach) and Geertjan about what do we > do with the Java support for

Java editor

Hello, Today, we were talking with Jarda (jtulach) and Geertjan about what do we do with the Java support for the beta release. I think the proposal is roughly like this: -the jdk-javac branch will be updated to --allow the IDE to start on JDK 8, with javac based Java features disabled (as best