commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [all] Showing the Java Version on component sites
Date Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:50:57 GMT
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
wrote:
>>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  >>  > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
wrote:
>>  >>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>  >>  >>  > I just re-published all the component sites and notice
that (by
>>  >>  >>  > mistake) it had used a patched copy of the
>>  >>  >>  > maven-project-info-reports-plugin that I have in my local
repo
>>  >>  >>  > (sorry!). Anyway I submitted a patch to maven to include
the Java
>>  >>  >>  > version on the dependencies page. The feedback I got was
they prefer
>>  >>  >>  > it on the project summary page - so I submitted a patch
for that as
>>  >>  >>  > well.
>>  >>  >>  >
>>  >>  >>  > Logging is an example of using different source/target
versions:
>>  >>  >>  >    http://commons.apache.org/logging/dependencies.html
>>  >>  >>  >    http://commons.apache.org/logging/project-summary.html
>>  >>  >>
>>  >>  >>  The part about "It has been built using Java 1.5" in the dependencies
>>  >>  >>  report isn't accurate. 1.5 is the version used (by you) to build
and
>>  >>  >>  publish the site. I used 1.4 when I did the logging release,
so having
>>  >>  >>  anything else there is misleading. I think that part should
be removed.
>>  >>  >>  What extra value does it give to users, providing it was correct?
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > I could ask the same question of maven and the Build-Jdk it puts
in
>>  >>  > the manifest which is really mis-leading since the source/target
>>  >>  > settings are missing - except here in commons.
>>  >>
>>  >>  The Build-Jdk in this case is the actual JDK that was used to produce
>>  >>  the jar file. So it is correct. Having the source and target in there
is
>>  >>  much better though, for the reasons you mention below.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  > My answer though is its a warning - since setting the target option
>>  >>  > doesn't actually guarantee it will run on that version if API's from
>>  >>  > later java versions have been used.
>>  >>
>>  >>  But in this case it's not a warning. It the JDK that was used to build
>>  >>  the *site* - not the jar file. That doesn't tell a user anything.
>>  >
>>  > OK looks like we're mis-communicating here - what exactly did you mean
>>  > by "providing it was correct" in your original question? I took it to
>>  > mean "providing it was the value used to build the jar for the
>>  > release".
>>
>>  Right, that's what I meant.
> 
> OK well that was the question I was answering - not if it wasn't
> correct which I didn't disagree with.

Great, so do we agree on this summary?

- It is good to put the "source" and "target" version parameters for the 
compiler plugin in the reports.

- It is bad to put the JDK version in the reports, because it is too 
difficult to get the correct value for it.




<snip/>

-- 
Dennis Lundberg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message