Hi Jason,
I think the stumbling block was all the new interfaces that existing
JDBC interfaces return from the new methods (SQLXML, NClob, etc.). I
don't see how the patch addresses it. Essentially the patch bumps up
the version of our implementations to Java 1.6, but makes it
incompatible with Java 1.5 compile environment.
As a temporary solution I guess we can stub the missing interface
dependencies for Java 5 compilation purposes, making a small Maven
module with "provided" scope. But if we do, then we don't need to
change the existing inheritance hierarchy. We can simply implement the
missing methods.
Or did I overlook something obvious?
Cheers,
Andrus
On Jan 6, 2008, at 6:53 AM, Jason Dwyer wrote:
> hi all,
>
> its been a while since i've had much time to keep up with cayenne, but
> have found a bit of space to flick through the dev mailing list in the
> last couple of days, and came across this thread.
>
> at first i thought 'bah, they wouldnt have broken the interfaces would
> they'? then, re-checking out the source and hooking it up in eclipse
> with default java ( 1.6.0-sun ), found exactly what kevin came across!
>
> ( however, i'll be more prosaic and not blame sun directly, i suspect
> something/someone in the jcp came up with it...)
>
> anyway, i had time to have a bit of a poke and a shuffle, and have
> come
> up with a rough-ish patch that i've attached to CAY-955, which _seems_
> to be doing the trick at least in my linux/java 6/eclipse environment:
> unit tests pass ok, but theres some ITests that fail ( not sure if
> thats
> due to my changes in the patch or if i hadnt set up the environment
> for
> it ).
>
> it provides a shallow hierarchy that provides some abstract classes
> for
> Connection, DataSource, PooledDataSource and ResultSetMetaData, which
> were the ones mostly affected by the inclusion of Wrapper in the
> implements clause for each of these in java 6. these abstract classes
> will obviously need filling out ( they're mostly just default auto-gen
> method bodies ), but the patch should be a good start.
>
> alas i dont think i'll have much more time to dig through cayenne
> again
> for a bit: back to the grind after the xmas break tomorrow, and it
> keeps
> me pretty busy, so if the patch is good, then great, otherwise, oh
> well!
>
> cheers,
>
> j
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 13:57 -0500, Kevin Menard wrote:
>> It's really unfortunate because Java 6 is ridiculously faster than
>> Java
>> 5, at least on Windows. I have a group of functional tests that were
>> cut by 50% just by bumping the JDK version.
>>
>> Oh well.
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Jan 06 2008 - 05:32:38 EST