Same here - this discussion prompted me to look at 1.6 once again and
actually think about a solution.
Cheers,
Andrus
On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:34 AM, Jason Dwyer wrote:
> heh,
>
> i didnt even try 1.5 again after it built with 1.6! d'oh!
>
> and yes, it would achieve the necessary result by adding the new
> interface methods to the classes, my intention was to encapsulate
> these
> to isolate any further future changes in these areas.
>
> ( still, it proved an interesting dig going through the newer 1.6
> javax.sql stuff, and while the submitted patch wont be useful
> directly,
> i did get a chance to see where cayenne is headed again...)
>
> cheers,
>
> j
>
> On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 12:32 +0200, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> 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 : Mon Jan 07 2008 - 03:54:51 EST