n bug
fixing, refactoring mode for the next version of Maven.
Jason.
Rahul
- Original Message - From: "Brett Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Maven Developers List"
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Java 5
This would have zero im
so, what happened with the survey? :-)
Rahul
- Original Message -
From: "Brett Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Maven Developers List"
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Java 5
This would have zero impact on applications b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Emmanuel Hugonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 28.11.2006
15:54:34:
I have to edit the pom.xml of
maven-plugin-tools-java to set the version of qdox to 1.6.1 and then
all
is fine.
Hi,
This is a temporary solution I use with a proximity
Emmanuel Hugonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 28.11.2006
15:54:34:
> >> I have to edit the pom.xml of
> >> maven-plugin-tools-java to set the version of qdox to 1.6.1 and then
all
> >> is fine.
> Hi,
> This is a temporary solution I use with a proximity proxy and an
> overriding pom.xml bu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Emmanuel Hugonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 28.11.2006
14:24:44:
I have to edit the pom.xml of
maven-plugin-tools-java to set the version of qdox to 1.6.1 and then all
is fine.
My solution in such a case:
- Download the source for the bro
> - Increment the version by 1
You might better indicate it as private branch.
The maven versioning system supports versions like
pluginname-2.0.1-aaron-1
This way you don't get conflicts if the release is
also beeing used (which almost certain will be the
case) in a later development phase by t
I'd suggest to
- create an issue for the bug to be solved
- create and attach a patch to the issue
- install the patched dependency with version N+1 and classifier
(-patchXYZ123) to avoid any conflict
Nico.
My solution in such a case:
- Download the source for the broken plugin
- Fix the d
Emmanuel Hugonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 28.11.2006
14:24:44:
> I have to edit the pom.xml of
> maven-plugin-tools-java to set the version of qdox to 1.6.1 and then all
> is fine.
My solution in such a case:
- Download the source for the broken plugin
- Fix the dependencies
- Increme
Please post the error.
Regards,
--
Aaron Digulla
Emmanuel Hugonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 27.11.2006
15:26:32:
> Tom Huybrechts a écrit :
> > On 11/27/06, Tom Huybrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This plugin uses sourcelevel 1.5:
> >>
> >> https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/trunk/moj
Tom Huybrechts a écrit :
On 11/27/06, Tom Huybrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This plugin uses sourcelevel 1.5:
https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/trunk/mojo/mojo-sandbox/repositorytools-maven-plugin
... and it does have non-mojo classes that do not have these
constraints (see the components
On 11/27/06, Tom Huybrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This plugin uses sourcelevel 1.5:
https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/trunk/mojo/mojo-sandbox/repositorytools-maven-plugin
... and it does have non-mojo classes that do not have these
constraints (see the components package)
--
This plugin uses sourcelevel 1.5:
https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/trunk/mojo/mojo-sandbox/repositorytools-maven-plugin
On 11/27/06, Emmanuel Hugonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Huybrechts a écrit :
> I write all my mojo's with 1.5.
> You just need to avoid using annotations and generics in t
Tom Huybrechts a écrit :
I write all my mojo's with 1.5.
You just need to avoid using annotations and generics in the signature
of your classes (fields, methods and their annotations).
Tom
So maybe you can enlight me ;-) : maven-plugin-tools-java (2.0.1 to
2.0.5-SNAPSHOT) has a dependency on q
>>> 1.5, we would be in a serious bind and it would limit adoption of Maven
>>> 2.1.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Rahul Thakur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:
.
-Original Message-
From: Rahul Thakur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:55 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discuss] Java 5
This thread kinda died off silently
Just wondering if there was a user survey about switching to Java 5.0?
Rahul
.5, we would be in a serious bind and it would limit adoption of Maven
2.1.
-Original Message-
From: Rahul Thakur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:55 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discuss] Java 5
This thread kinda died off silently
Just won
erious bind and it would limit adoption of
Maven
2.1.
-Original Message-
From: Rahul Thakur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:55 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discuss] Java 5
This thread kinda died off silently
Just wondering if there wa
;t dictate the JDK required. If maven suddenly required Java
1.5, we would be in a serious bind and it would limit adoption of Maven
2.1.
-Original Message-
From: Rahul Thakur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:55 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discu
This thread kinda died off silently
Just wondering if there was a user survey about switching to Java 5.0?
Rahul
- Original Message -
From: "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Maven Developers List"
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 6:09 AM
Subject: Re:
Ok, to sum up what happened here:
- we can't do it in Maven until we have better external tools support
(so, maybe for 2.1, but any significant work in JDK 5 should probably be
held until 2.2)
- Continuum forks all builds, so it should be fine, but I think it is
worth waiting until profiles are
Rinku wrote:
There are currently 5 open issues for 1.6 and it has been like that
for a while. I thought that I might try to convince them to release
the current trunk as 1.6 so that projects, that can not use snapshots
in releases, could start using it. The current trunk has some, but
not
There are currently 5 open issues for 1.6 and it has been like that
for a while. I thought that I might try to convince them to release
the current trunk as 1.6 so that projects, that can not use snapshots
in releases, could start using it. The current trunk has some, but
not all, Java 5 f
ROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 6, 2006 8:36 PM
Subject: [discuss] Java 5
To: Maven Developers List
Hi,
I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
stuff we build. We currently restrict to 1.4 across the board.
Here's what I'm thinking:
- MRM and Continuum should switch now.
Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If you use maven to develop for a J2EE 1.2/1.3 target enviroment, your
code is required to run on JDK 1.4
A continuum run that builds that code targeted for 1.4 using a JDK 5
is pretty much useless because it doesn't build what must get
deployed.
If you a
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe qdox has been fixed and we just need an upgrade, but I'm
not sure. AFAIK it doesn't work with the current version.
It does not work in current version of the java plugin tool since qdox
1.5 doesn't support generics.
+1 for Continuum/MRM
-1 for maven, I know lots of users still using 1.4 and this is part of
the company policy to run stuff with 1.4.
Stéphane
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
> stuff we build. We currently restrict to 1.4 across the board.
>
> Here
Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe qdox has been fixed and we just need an upgrade, but I'm not
sure. AFAIK it doesn't work with the current version.
It does not work in current version of the java plugin tool since qdox
1.5 doesn't support generics.
I tried to upgrade to
On 7 Jul 06, at 2:36 AM 7 Jul 06, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
stuff we build. We currently restrict to 1.4 across the board.
I think before this can be done we need to make sure we're not making
life difficult for people.
We can do a placeholder under java group and then com.sun.java,
com.ibm.java,...
This won't work very well until we have some "provides" mechanism that
will pick one implementation and only one.
On 7/7/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yikes. That strikes me as truly scary and ass
Possibly. There's no reason not to offer any jvm whose license will allow
it. Any other can be manually installed.
Eric
On 7/7/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yikes. That strikes me as truly scary and assumes that everyone is
running Sun compilers/JVMs. Am I misunderstanding s
Yikes. That strikes me as truly scary and assumes that everyone is
running Sun compilers/JVMs. Am I misunderstanding something?
Regards,
Alan
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
I think we should add the rt.jar and tools.jar to the repo as any
other dependency, to allow building with 1.5 against 1.4 rt.j
I remember a while back a discussion about accepting licenses as part of
Maven's downloading artifacts with non-apache constraints (such as sun
jars). Has anything come of this in 2.1? That might be the answer right
there.
Eric
On 7/7/06, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we sh
I think we should add the rt.jar and tools.jar to the repo as any
other dependency, to allow building with 1.5 against 1.4 rt.jar. Of
course we'll hit again the Sun policy about redistribution and people
would have to put it by hand in their repos.
On 7/7/06, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> Uhm, no. All you have to do to be 100% that it works in a 1.4
> environment is to fork the compiler. AFAIK the Eclipse compiler should
> also be able to build 1.4 code safely against the 1.4 rt.jar
>
> Still this really won't change the cur
Steve Loughran wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
stuff we build. We currently restrict to 1.4 across the board.
Here's what I'm thinking:
- MRM and Continuum should switch now. Stuff built there is rarely
consumed elsewhere,
Oh, then +1 pending improved historical support!
Brett Porter wrote:
As far as Maven goes, this would only be the JVM used to run it - it
needs to be able to build projects using any JDK available (and the
support for that needs to first be improved).
On 7/07/2006 8:15 PM, Andrew Williams wro
Sounds like a great idea! (not +1'ing since I didn't see an official vote
yet)
The toolchain stuff will be nice for projects with 1.4 vs 1.5 releases in
the mix as well.
On 7/7/06, Fabrice Bellingard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/7/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As far as Ma
On 7/7/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as Maven goes, this would only be the JVM used to run it - it
needs to be able to build projects using any JDK available (and the
support for that needs to first be improved).
+1 for Continuum and MRM switching now to Java 5
+1 for M
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
stuff we build. We currently restrict to 1.4 across the board.
Here's what I'm thinking:
- MRM and Continuum should switch now. Stuff built there is rarely
consumed elsewhere, and a Java 5 requirement
(user votes)
+1 Starting with Continuum/MRM as it might trigger some issues which
yield experience before doing Maven
+1 On FAQ documentation on how to run maven in JDK 1.5 but compile with
JDK 1.3/1.4 API's (not just -source).
I would really like the ability to write tiger annotated maven
Brett Porter wrote:
This would actually be irrelevant if we supported annotations, though,
since we could use either qdox for 1.4 source or the annotations for 1.5
(similar to how testNG works).
True, but how would you tell the difference between a file using 1.4 and
1.5 sources? I guess a fl
On 7/7/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would actually be irrelevant if we supported annotations, though,
since we could use either qdox for 1.4 source or the annotations for 1.5
(similar to how testNG works).
I don't understand why you consider this irrelevant?
--
Whenever yo
This would actually be irrelevant if we supported annotations, though,
since we could use either qdox for 1.4 source or the annotations for 1.5
(similar to how testNG works).
On 7/07/2006 8:44 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe qdox has been fixed and we just need an upgr
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe qdox has been fixed and we just need an upgrade, but I'm not
sure. AFAIK it doesn't work with the current version.
It does not work in current version of the java plugin tool since qdox
1.5 doesn't support generics.
I tried to upgrade to qdox 1.6-SNAPSHOT and it
On 7/7/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe qdox has been fixed and we just need an upgrade, but I'm not
sure. AFAIK it doesn't work with the current version.
Thanks, qdox was the keyward I was missing. QDOX-94 is still open and
without any comments. IMO, this is a big hurdle
I believe qdox has been fixed and we just need an upgrade, but I'm not
sure. AFAIK it doesn't work with the current version.
On 7/07/2006 8:29 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On 7/7/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
stuf
On 7/7/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
stuff we build. We currently restrict to 1.4 across the board.
I have a question, Brett: Is it currently possible to write Plugins in
Java 5? I remember, that that the annotat
+1 if a practical solution to compile pre Java5 code is documented. (I
still use 1.3 on some projects)
There is doc for the compiler plugin, but I don't think the aspectj
plugin has an equivalent for this and uses maven bootclasspath.
Emmanuel Venisse a écrit :
I'm +1 for Continuum/MRM.
Andrew Williams wrote on Friday, July 07, 2006 12:16 PM:
> -1 We have to support 1.4 as we a re rolling into academic
> environments where the upgrade cycle is > 3 years, so many users are
> still
> new to 1.4
> (though they do not know it). And to be honest I just don't trust 1.5
> generating 1.
As far as Maven goes, this would only be the JVM used to run it - it
needs to be able to build projects using any JDK available (and the
support for that needs to first be improved).
On 7/07/2006 8:15 PM, Andrew Williams wrote:
-1 We have to support 1.4 as we a re rolling into academic environm
-1 We have to support 1.4 as we a re rolling into academic environments
where the upgrade cycle is > 3 years, so many users are still new to 1.4
(though they do not know it). And to be honest I just don't trust 1.5
generating 1.4 code...
A
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to get thoughts on
I'm +1 for Continuum/MRM.
For Maven, I think lot of project use always 1.4. So if we use 1.5, we'll can perhaps create an 1.4
version with RetroWeaver.
Emmanuel
Brett Porter a écrit :
Hi,
I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
stuff we build. We currently restr
On 7/07/2006 4:51 PM, Milos Kleint wrote:
I think I can forbid installing the netbeans modules when running on
1.4. My concern was how the 1.4-compiled netbeans binaries will play
with the 1.5-compiled binaries of mevenide. (or if I compile mevenide
with 1.4, how wil it play with 1.5-compiled mav
On 7/7/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks, I thought NB had already changed to that requirement (Eclipse
and IDEA have some time ago).
it did update, however right at the beginning of the next release
cycle (6.0) which is a month or two back. Nb has the policy of
supporting 2 st
Currently, I use Netbeans with jdk 1.4 at work (but no Maven) and with
5.0at home.
Raphaël
2006/7/7, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Thanks, I thought NB had already changed to that requirement (Eclipse
and IDEA have some time ago).
Do you have any indication of how many NB users stick to o
Thanks, I thought NB had already changed to that requirement (Eclipse
and IDEA have some time ago).
Do you have any indication of how many NB users stick to old versions? I
get the feeling they upgrade pretty fast. I'd also be interested to see
how many NB users still use JDK 1.4 to run the ID
-1
for netbeans integration that would probably mean dropping 5.0 and
upcoming 5.5 support, as only the cvs trunk of netbeans switched to
jdk15. we could maybe try to make sure people start the IDE with 1.5.
I have no experience with such setup though, would it work?
Milos
On 7/7/06, Brett Port
I'm sure that most organizations with a central build system will have
little problem using Java 5, the only danger I see in my group is individual
developers who like to run builds locally using Maven, when we develop with
1.4. They must continue developing in 1.4, and now requre 5 soley for Mave
Yep, that's what I meant. It's something we should have regardless, but
would be an absolute prerequisite to moving Maven over.
On 7/07/2006 11:51 AM, Stephen Duncan wrote:
While I'm happily developing use Java 5 now, what would be the impact
on those needing to target Java 1.4 or below buildin
While I'm happily developing use Java 5 now, what would be the impact
on those needing to target Java 1.4 or below building with Maven?
Specifically, the relative ease/difficulty of making sure to compile
against the 1.4 JDK libraries? Is that meant to be covered under
"improved support for invok
Hi,
I wanted to get thoughts on starting to require a Java 5 JVM to run
stuff we build. We currently restrict to 1.4 across the board.
Here's what I'm thinking:
- MRM and Continuum should switch now. Stuff built there is rarely
consumed elsewhere, and a Java 5 requirement outside of that is r
61 matches
Mail list logo
