[aerogear-dev] What is our default JDK platform?
Bruno Oliveira
bruno at abstractj.org
Thu May 30 10:36:49 EDT 2013
Hi Karel, maybe I'm not following you on it, but let me try to explain 2
scenarios for OTP for example:
- Android developer wants to make use of the OTP project aerogear-otp-java
In this situation we test aerogear-otp-java against JDK 6, because this
must be supported on android
- Backend developer running new features from JDK 7 and totally tied to
that (because he wants to be cool and follow the trends)
In this situation we test aerogear-otp-java against JDK 7, only to avoid
surprises when some developer start to add it to the codebase.
So travis will test it against JDK 6 and JDK 7 for these reasons.
Karel Piwko wrote:
> I still don't get it.
>
> How am I supposed to run code compiled with -target 1.7 on JDK6?
> This will throw UnsupportedClassVersionError.
>
> The only way how to test on both JDK6 and JDK7 is to have code compiled against
> target 1.6. And this would require source 1.6. So, if Vert.x (1.3.1 and
> 2.0.0.beta3 targets JDK7) and Netty (4.0.0.CR3 targets JDK6) are compiled
> targeting JDK7, testing on JDK6 is out of scope.
>
> Karel
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 10:43:32 -0300
> Bruno Oliveira<bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:
>
>> Security has dependency with other projects, so just in case I'm testing
>> it against both
>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-security-picketlink/blob/master/.travis.yml#L3
>>
>> Also OTP must support Android and the backend, testing both for the same
>> reason.
>>
>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Oliveira<bruno at abstractj.org
>>> <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Only for Android as Summers already mentioned.
>>>
>>>
>>> yeah - I ment for JDK7 on all other things, besides Android :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>> > Honestly, I don't see a huge issue with JDK 7....
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Karel Piwko<kpiwko at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:kpiwko at redhat.com>
>>> > <mailto:kpiwko at redhat.com<mailto:kpiwko at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Good to know. I haven't seen any enforcer plugin rule and
>>> compiler
>>> > plugin is set
>>> > to 1.6, so I though it is still on JDK6.
>>> >
>>> > Karel
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:27:48 +0200
>>> > Daniel Bevenius<daniel.bevenius at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi,
>>> > >
>>> > > SimplePush Server uses Netty 4 and now also vert.x
>>> > (2.0.0-beta4-SNAPSHOT)
>>> > > which both require Java 7. So it's not only PushEE anymore that
>>> > has this
>>> > > requirement.
>>> > >
>>> > > cheers,
>>> > >
>>> > > /Dan
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 29 May 2013 15:11, Karel Piwko<kpiwko at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:kpiwko at redhat.com>
>>> > <mailto:kpiwko at redhat.com<mailto:kpiwko at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hi,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Most of the code is JDK6, except PushEE which requires JDK 6.
>>> > Android
>>> > > > requires
>>> > > > JDK 6 API as well, thanks Summers for pointing that out. The
>>> > only component
>>> > > > that requires JDK7 is PushEE afaict.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So, even if JDK 6 is officially EOLed (at least Oracle's one),
>>> > I'd prefer
>>> > > > to
>>> > > > limit our code to JDK6 features. Does it make sense?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I can setup animal sniffer plugin to enforce JDK API
>>> > conformance and
>>> > > > send PRs if you will - btw, do you guys already have a common
>>> > parent with
>>> > > > plugin
>>> > > > configuration?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The other question is default runtime. Would you guys recommend
>>> > JDK7 or
>>> > > > JDK6?
>>> > > > I'm biased here to decide myself.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Karel
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> > > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>>
>>> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>>
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Matthias Wessendorf
>>> >
>>> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list