You have been getting 1.5 by default for a long time. At least since the
2.3 release of the compiler plugin..
On Fri, November 30, 2012 7:35 am, Tim Pizey wrote:
> On 30 November 2012 13:42, Aliaksei Lahachou wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I'm am against updating default version to 1.7. My favour
BTW I favour keeping at 1.5. That is the highest version we can guarantee a
user of Maven 3.1.0's JDK can compile at (because in order to run Maven
2.2.1+ you need Java 1.5) so unless they are using toolchains (which to be
honest, given the lack of bugs reported around toolchains and my knowledge
o
Actually the current behaviour is 1.5 is using Maven Compiler Plugin 2.5 or
newer (might be 2.4 but I'd need to check)
With Maven 3.1.0, the version of the Maven Compiler Plugin that you get if
you have not locked down plugin versions will be upped to a version with
this new default.
So if you do
On 30 November 2012 13:42, Aliaksei Lahachou wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm am against updating default version to 1.7. My favourite option would
> be to use the lowest possible version of JDK and give a warning if version
> is not specified explicitly
I too am in favour of maintaining the curre
I understand that it's not about making Maven run on 7.
The problem is that people build artifacts on 7 (which will become more
often if it's default) and deploy these artifacts to repository, then
people who are using JDK 6 will not be able to compile with this artifacts
(the target JDK is writte
We are not talking about making Maven only run on 7.
We just want to move the default compiler to 6 (at least) or 7.
You can always set it back to 1.3.
It is just odd for new projects to start up with Maven and suddenly find
than Maven wants to use 1.3 to compile code.
Please, no more warnings
Hello everyone,
I'm am against updating default version to 1.7. My favourite option would
be to use the lowest possible version of JDK and give a warning if version
is not specified explicitly (similar to what resources plugin does with
encoding). I would actually go as far as warning people if th
Hi,
> I have never seen any java application fail just because I run the
> version 7 VM. Even really old code still runs.
A couple of Atlassian applications I work with in our department that
didn't run (fine) with Java 7:
- JIRA <= 5.1.x (5.2 was released ~3 weeks ago)
- Bamboo <= 3.2.x (3.3
On 29/11/2012 9:06 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Ron Wheeler
wrote:
On 29/11/2012 2:58 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Most serious users of Maven start out by building and releasing a
common parent POM for their corporation or workgroup. This locks down
plugin versi
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Ron Wheeler
wrote:
> On 29/11/2012 2:58 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> Most serious users of Maven start out by building and releasing a
>> common parent POM for their corporation or workgroup. This locks down
>> plugin versions and configures core plugins such
On 29/11/2012 2:58 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Most serious users of Maven start out by building and releasing a
common parent POM for their corporation or workgroup. This locks down
plugin versions and configures core plugins such as the
maven-compiler-plugin. So the old default to 1.3 was never
Most serious users of Maven start out by building and releasing a
common parent POM for their corporation or workgroup. This locks down
plugin versions and configures core plugins such as the
maven-compiler-plugin. So the old default to 1.3 was never a very
serious inconvenience, since it's just a
On 29/11/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
It was a response to "I am sure that some of the Maven developers
would like to use some of the new Java features to make the coding
easier."
For the Maven (core) developers to take advantage of the newer
features, we would need to up the level
On 29/11/2012 2:14 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
Not "would" but I hazard an argument to say "could", there are subtle
API -signature- changes that make targetting older bytecode
problematic, aka from JDK5-6 I believe there were some methods ( class
escapes me now ) that used to take a String but n
It was a response to "I am sure that some of the Maven developers would
like to use some of the new Java features to make the coding easier."
For the Maven (core) developers to take advantage of the newer features, we
would need to up the level we compile core with. JavaC will allow
less than b
Not "would" but I hazard an argument to say "could", there are subtle
API -signature- changes that make targetting older bytecode problematic,
aka from JDK5-6 I believe there were some methods ( class escapes me now
) that used to take a String but now take a CharSequence, source
compatible but
Surely the change here is ONLY with the maven-compiler-plugin and
affects what it puts as the --source and --target arguments to javac
when compiler - I don't see why that should affect core?
I admit I'm not really sure how m-c-p relates down into plexus-compiler
and the compiler infrastructur
I was only saying that why organizations are not moving to JDK 7. Lot of
those organizations has policy to use only that JDK also for devepment ,
so you cannot install JDK 7.
I know you can run Maven over Java7 with older projects with some
restrictions.
One is if you project use jasper-repo
On 29/11/2012 12:48 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
You only get the new language features from after 1.5 if target > 1.5,
so switching core to use the newer features would make core
incompatible with running on 1.5
Not sure that I understand how this follows.
The target compiler should not dete
You only get the new language features from after 1.5 if target > 1.5, so
switching core to use the newer features would make core incompatible with
running on 1.5
On 29 November 2012 17:25, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> On 29/11/2012 12:01 PM, Curtis Rueden wrote:
>
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> > Is it not possible
On 29/11/2012 12:01 PM, Curtis Rueden wrote:
Hi Ron,
> Is it not possible to run Maven in a JRE7 VM and compile code with a
> 1.3 compiler?
If you have a JRE7 VM available, then sure. If JRE7 is not available
for your platform, then it must remain possible to run Maven with an
older JRE, or e
Hi Ron,
> Is it not possible to run Maven in a JRE7 VM and compile code with a
> 1.3 compiler?
If you have a JRE7 VM available, then sure. If JRE7 is not available for
your platform, then it must remain possible to run Maven with an older JRE,
or else no more Maven for you. I do not know enough a
On 29/11/2012 10:17 AM, Markku Saarela wrote:
People is stuck for old Java versions due to the fact that for example
organizations are using IBM WebSphere and do not upgrade those
immediately when new version of WAS is released. WAS 6.1 which was
released in 2006 and just add support for JDK 1
People is stuck for old Java versions due to the fact that for example
organizations are using IBM WebSphere and do not upgrade those
immediately when new version of WAS is released. WAS 6.1 which was
released in 2006 and just add support for JDK 1.5 not 1.6. It is WAS 7
which has JDK 6 suppor
Java 7 has been out for almost a year and a half.
Java 6 was released in 2006
What keeps people on old versions for over 8 years(1.5)?
We have tried to keep up with the times and feel that we got a lot of
performance improvements over time without any pain as we changed versions.
There does n
That is a fair point. And I concur, that until core ups its minimum JRE
requirement, compiler shouldn't move past that...
Raises the question should core up to 1.6... I don't see a pressing need
yet...
Lambdas are not until 1.8, and we don't do the crazy generics stuff that,
for example, forced J
Leaving aside questions of compatibility, Java 7 as compiler default would
be a poor choice. After all, that would require JRE 7 as a standard for
running Maven, or using one of the Eclipse compilers. Otherwise, that would
be unsupported by the compiler.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ron Whee
a to form part of a larger web-service server on OpenVMS is not so
> easy. Legacy code has value too, not only
> legacy data!
> Josef
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Mark Derricutt [mailto:m...@talios.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 19:36
> An: Maven U
Do users often accidentally upgrade major releases of maven without care or
thought?
….maybe I shouldn't ask that tho :)
On 29/11/2012, at 9:47 AM, Manfred Moser wrote:
> +1 even though that would trip up lots if users IMHO.
+1 even though that would trip up lots if users IMHO.
Given that Jdk 6 will be deprecated in spring it might be a good move
Ron Wheeler wrote:
>+1
>
>On 28/11/2012 1:36 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
>> Now that Oracle are controlling Java on OSX we can no longer "blame
>Apple" - I'd love to see t
+1
On 28/11/2012 1:36 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
Now that Oracle are controlling Java on OSX we can no longer "blame Apple" -
I'd love to see the default become Java 7 now.
And if one needs to lock down to the older versions, lock them down.
On 29/11/2012, at 7:07 AM, Curtis Rueden wrote:
Hi Mark,
> Now that Oracle are controlling Java on OSX we can no longer "blame
> Apple"
Well, the new problem is that Java 7 only runs on Lion or later. So then I
blame whoever made that decision. It has forced my projects to stay with
Java 6 (which can for the most part be run in a Java 5 enviro
Now that Oracle are controlling Java on OSX we can no longer "blame Apple" -
I'd love to see the default become Java 7 now.
And if one needs to lock down to the older versions, lock them down.
On 29/11/2012, at 7:07 AM, Curtis Rueden wrote:
>> Good to know that Maven is now only 8 years behin
Hi Ron,
> Good to know that Maven is now only 8 years behind.
I blame Apple.
-Curtis
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> Good to know that Maven is now only 8 years behind. Better than 12, I
> suppose!
>
> Ron
>
>
> On 28/11/2012 10:40 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> Up un
Good to know that Maven is now only 8 years behind. Better than 12, I
suppose!
Ron
On 28/11/2012 10:40 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
Up until m-c-p 2.5ish the default value for source was 1.3.
That was updated and newer versions of m-c-p use 1.5 as the default
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/m
Up until m-c-p 2.5ish the default value for source was 1.3.
That was updated and newer versions of m-c-p use 1.5 as the default
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-compiler-plugin/compile-mojo.html#source
Maven 3.1.0 will have m-c-p's default version pinned at least at 2.5, so
when that gets r
I use mvn on the command line. I actually solved the problem by setting the
java version explicitly. I have jdk 1.6.0_33. I found some things on
various sites which suggested mvn always compiles in 1.3 mode. You might
not notice this in an IDE (if it is true) since your IDE is likely to fix
this fo
What IDE are you using.
If your colleagues are using the same pom, you need to look at your IDE
setup.
For example, Eclipse will let you select any of the available compilers.
Ron
On 16/11/2012 8:21 AM, John Patrick wrote:
Jasper,
I also experience similar issues, it comes down to what vers
Jasper,
I also experience similar issues, it comes down to what version of
java you have installed, what version of the plugin you use and what
their respective defaults are. To avoid this I would explicitly state
version's of plugins and also a few other useful properties. I always
but at the lea
Hi,
Which maven-compiler-plugin version are you using ?
Does your colleague set JAVA_HOME env var on windows ?
2012/11/16 Jasper Floor :
> Hi,
>
> For some reason mvn is compiling using java 1.3. I do not understand this
> behavior. I have never seen this before and it doesn't do this on my
> coll
40 matches
Mail list logo
