Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 4.0
    • Component/s: Documentation
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      • Need strong notice about problems building with older JDK. Probably in the SVN/Build page
      • Test Project page refers to profiles.xml which does not exist but is part of the Pom.xml
      • Test Project page should mention editing the Torque.properties in the src/test/profile/$ {profile}

        directory

        Activity

        Hide
        Thomas Vandahl added a comment -

        I was able to fix the compiler failure by adding a simple cast to (T). No idea why this works. Note that the same construct in a non-static method compiles fine.

        Anyhow, the Torque Runtime compiles fine now with jdk 1.5.0_22 under Windows.

        Show
        Thomas Vandahl added a comment - I was able to fix the compiler failure by adding a simple cast to (T). No idea why this works. Note that the same construct in a non-static method compiles fine. Anyhow, the Torque Runtime compiles fine now with jdk 1.5.0_22 under Windows.
        Hide
        Thomas Fox added a comment -

        Sorry the enforcer plugin will not work, because there are different jdks out there. The eclipse bug say oracle jdk >=1.6.0_25 is needed to compile ok, but I have an ubuntu openjdk 1.6.0_24 which also compiles the current runtime code and is the latest version available. The enforcer plugin fails for this when enforcing >=1.6.0-25.
        So this would fail the build for jdks which compile the code without errors. This is not an option in my opinion.

        Show
        Thomas Fox added a comment - Sorry the enforcer plugin will not work, because there are different jdks out there. The eclipse bug say oracle jdk >=1.6.0_25 is needed to compile ok, but I have an ubuntu openjdk 1.6.0_24 which also compiles the current runtime code and is the latest version available. The enforcer plugin fails for this when enforcing >=1.6.0-25. So this would fail the build for jdks which compile the code without errors. This is not an option in my opinion.
        Hide
        Thomas Fox added a comment -

        The enforcer plugin is a good suggestion. We need jdk >= Java 1.6.0-25.
        I'd not want to loose type safety because of a fixed compiler bug, so if the rewrite looses type safety, I'd not do it. But please have a look if you want to.

        Show
        Thomas Fox added a comment - The enforcer plugin is a good suggestion. We need jdk >= Java 1.6.0-25. I'd not want to loose type safety because of a fixed compiler bug, so if the rewrite looses type safety, I'd not do it. But please have a look if you want to.
        Hide
        Thomas Vandahl added a comment -

        I'll try to fix the original issue by re-writing the piece of code in question. Then we can lift the restriction again. WDYT?

        Show
        Thomas Vandahl added a comment - I'll try to fix the original issue by re-writing the piece of code in question. Then we can lift the restriction again. WDYT?
        Hide
        Thomas Vandahl added a comment -

        I'd suggest to add the restriction to the build file like described in http://blogs.bytecode.com.au/glen/2009/09/15/maven-tip-enforcing-a-jdk-version-in-your-build.html

        Show
        Thomas Vandahl added a comment - I'd suggest to add the restriction to the build file like described in http://blogs.bytecode.com.au/glen/2009/09/15/maven-tip-enforcing-a-jdk-version-in-your-build.html
        Hide
        Thomas Fox added a comment -

        Also the bugs fixed in 4.0 should be added to the jira report, so it contains the bugs for 4.0-beta1 and 4.0

        Show
        Thomas Fox added a comment - Also the bugs fixed in 4.0 should be added to the jira report, so it contains the bugs for 4.0-beta1 and 4.0
        Hide
        Thomas Fox added a comment -

        the jdk needed to built was put on the developer guide page

        Show
        Thomas Fox added a comment - the jdk needed to built was put on the developer guide page

          People

          • Assignee:
            Thomas Fox
            Reporter:
            Greg Monroe
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development