[Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more?

[Allon Mureinik]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer at redhat.com>
> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>, "Michael Kublin" <mkublin at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand at redhat.com>, engine-devel at ovirt.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:50:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more?
> 
> 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.
I'm a very small fan of enforcing policy by reviewers.
Not that the community reviews aren't great - but people miss things.

Here's my take on Maven's enforcer plugin to actually verify we aren't compiling with JDK 7:
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6523

comments welcome.

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