[Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more?

[Livnat Peer]

On 21/07/12 15:15, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote:
>>>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
>>>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in
>>>>>>>> GWT code?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a very good point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note that there
>>>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this reason,
>>>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If someone
>>>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT
>>>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code and any
>>>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly referenced by
>>>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, however.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could do something like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance to
>>>>>>> Java 7
>>>>>>> - let frontend modules POM (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml)
>>>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since
>>>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vojtech
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 - I really like this idea!
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 from me as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 (regardless of
>>>> GWT -
>>>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards)
>>>>
>>>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7?
>>>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with JDK6?
>>>>
>>>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for now -
>>>> maybe
>>>> until the next ovirt release?).
>>> +1
>>> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs unless there
>>> is a good (or at least any) reason for them…
>>
>> +1
> 
> +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow comparing
> behavior while java 7 is still young.

Since no one objected, we'll go with JDK6 syntax compatibility for Now.

Kublin - can you please send a patch to remove the usage of Long.Compare
in StorageDomainCommandBase

Thanks, Livnat


> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel