Artemis and Eclipse...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Artemis and Eclipse...

dkulp
I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.

Just have a couple of questions:

1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?

2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)




--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

andytaylor
Nice work. I'll take a look tomorrow if no on else does and answer.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 19:36 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily
> into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I
> haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>
> Just have a couple of questions:
>
> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is
> used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7
> runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8
> to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>
> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at
> all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk
> profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about
> differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by dkulp
Don't worry about the examples yet.. I'm refactoring them.. I'm just
not ready to push anything to master.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>
> Just have a couple of questions:
>
> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>
> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by dkulp
The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
way to solve that.

Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>
> Just have a couple of questions:
>
> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>
> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

Robbie Gemmell
Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with Java8
and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that only
works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc processing
fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new config
option.

When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7 or 8
without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
the config selectively.

Robbie

On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
> way to solve that.
>
> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>
>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>
>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>
>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
any other options back then.

If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
difficult that would be though



On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with Java8
> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that only
> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc processing
> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new config
> option.
>
> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7 or 8
> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
> the config selectively.
>
> Robbie
>
> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
>> way to solve that.
>>
>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>>
>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>>
>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>>
>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

chirino
I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java 7
support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android, etc).
Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
Artemis?

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
> any other options back then.
>
> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
> difficult that would be though
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with Java8
>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that only
>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc processing
>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new config
>> option.
>>
>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7 or 8
>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
>> the config selectively.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
>>> way to solve that.
>>>
>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>>>
>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>>>
>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
True,


although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways to
not require that setting

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java 7
> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android, etc).
> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
> Artemis?
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
>> any other options back then.
>>
>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
>> difficult that would be though
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with Java8
>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that only
>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc processing
>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new config
>>> option.
>>>
>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7 or 8
>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
>>> the config selectively.
>>>
>>> Robbie
>>>
>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
>>>> way to solve that.
>>>>
>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by dkulp
Daniel:

I am sending a revert for your commit on m2e on this PR:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/20



The PR check is failing with a JDK bug caused by the commit your sent.
I have no idea on how to fix it now.
This is build failure:
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/409/

I will have to revert this now as I can't compile on the PR check and
in Linux box I have for my own tests.


On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>
> Just have a couple of questions:
>
> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>
> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

dkulp
Seems to be an issue with the maven-compiler-plugin.  Backing down to 3.1 makes it go away.   I tried 3.3 and 3.2 and both caused the issue.   Strange.  Need to dig through the compiler plugin to see what might have changed to cause this.

Dan



> On Jun 8, 2015, at 11:53 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Daniel:
>
> I am sending a revert for your commit on m2e on this PR:
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/20
>
>
>
> The PR check is failing with a JDK bug caused by the commit your sent.
> I have no idea on how to fix it now.
> This is build failure:
> https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/409/
>
> I will have to revert this now as I can't compile on the PR check and
> in Linux box I have for my own tests.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>
>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>
>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>
>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

dkulp
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic

> On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> True,
>
> although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways to
> not require that setting

I started looking at this.  Definitely a lot more involved than I was expecting.  It was definitely the right call to add the setting to get the release out.

At this point a “mvn -Pdev install” will now work without that setting.   That’s a good start.   The javadoc run in artemis-website now will run without an error. (plenty of warnings though)   However, javadoc in the individual modules still fails.   Since the javadoc in the modules is part of the deploy (and release) process, we still need the switch.

One step at a time…..

Dan


>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java 7
>> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
>> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
>> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android, etc).
>> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
>> Artemis?
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
>>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
>>> any other options back then.
>>>
>>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
>>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
>>> difficult that would be though
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with Java8
>>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
>>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that only
>>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc processing
>>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new config
>>>> option.
>>>>
>>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
>>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7 or 8
>>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
>>>> the config selectively.
>>>>
>>>> Robbie
>>>>
>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
>>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
>>>>> way to solve that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
>>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
>>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
Both the PR build and the commit build should include a javadoc build
once we fix those. It's quite easy to break javadoc refs. You just add
javadocs, refactor stuff and boom.. javadoc gets broken.


On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> True,
>>
>> although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways to
>> not require that setting
>
> I started looking at this.  Definitely a lot more involved than I was expecting.  It was definitely the right call to add the setting to get the release out.
>
> At this point a “mvn -Pdev install” will now work without that setting.   That’s a good start.   The javadoc run in artemis-website now will run without an error. (plenty of warnings though)   However, javadoc in the individual modules still fails.   Since the javadoc in the modules is part of the deploy (and release) process, we still need the switch.
>
> One step at a time…..
>
> Dan
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java 7
>>> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
>>> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
>>> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android, etc).
>>> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
>>> Artemis?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
>>>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
>>>> any other options back then.
>>>>
>>>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
>>>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
>>>> difficult that would be though
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with Java8
>>>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
>>>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that only
>>>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc processing
>>>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new config
>>>>> option.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
>>>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7 or 8
>>>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
>>>>> the config selectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
>>>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
>>>>>> way to solve that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
>>>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
>>>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
I have fixed all the javadoc issues on this PR:


https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22


But I had to use annotation to remove the javadoc annotations on the
maven-plugin. And the current maven used on the PR build is not
compatible with it:

https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/



So,

@Daniel Can you bump the version at the commit build. Can you also add
javadoc as a goal to the build, so we won't break javadoc ever again
without being noticed
@JustinBertram: Can you do the same
@BruceSnyder: Can you add me to the PR user's as I requested on the
private list, so I won't need to ask Daniel and Justin again for this
kind of thing? :)




I will send another commit to bump the minimal Maven version.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Both the PR build and the commit build should include a javadoc build
> once we fix those. It's quite easy to break javadoc refs. You just add
> javadocs, refactor stuff and boom.. javadoc gets broken.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> True,
>>>
>>> although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways to
>>> not require that setting
>>
>> I started looking at this.  Definitely a lot more involved than I was expecting.  It was definitely the right call to add the setting to get the release out.
>>
>> At this point a “mvn -Pdev install” will now work without that setting.   That’s a good start.   The javadoc run in artemis-website now will run without an error. (plenty of warnings though)   However, javadoc in the individual modules still fails.   Since the javadoc in the modules is part of the deploy (and release) process, we still need the switch.
>>
>> One step at a time…..
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java 7
>>>> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
>>>> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
>>>> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android, etc).
>>>> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
>>>> Artemis?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
>>>>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
>>>>> any other options back then.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
>>>>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
>>>>> difficult that would be though
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with Java8
>>>>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
>>>>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that only
>>>>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc processing
>>>>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new config
>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
>>>>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7 or 8
>>>>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
>>>>>> the config selectively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
>>>>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
>>>>>>> way to solve that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
>>>>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
>>>>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
I found a way to not require bumping the version of maven. just add
annotation processing to the plugin on the.


But if someone could please add javadoc goal on the PR builds and
build checks please? that's the only change needed for this now.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have fixed all the javadoc issues on this PR:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22
>
>
> But I had to use annotation to remove the javadoc annotations on the
> maven-plugin. And the current maven used on the PR build is not
> compatible with it:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/
>
>
>
> So,
>
> @Daniel Can you bump the version at the commit build. Can you also add
> javadoc as a goal to the build, so we won't break javadoc ever again
> without being noticed
> @JustinBertram: Can you do the same
> @BruceSnyder: Can you add me to the PR user's as I requested on the
> private list, so I won't need to ask Daniel and Justin again for this
> kind of thing? :)
>
>
>
>
> I will send another commit to bump the minimal Maven version.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Both the PR build and the commit build should include a javadoc build
>> once we fix those. It's quite easy to break javadoc refs. You just add
>> javadocs, refactor stuff and boom.. javadoc gets broken.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> True,
>>>>
>>>> although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways to
>>>> not require that setting
>>>
>>> I started looking at this.  Definitely a lot more involved than I was expecting.  It was definitely the right call to add the setting to get the release out.
>>>
>>> At this point a “mvn -Pdev install” will now work without that setting.   That’s a good start.   The javadoc run in artemis-website now will run without an error. (plenty of warnings though)   However, javadoc in the individual modules still fails.   Since the javadoc in the modules is part of the deploy (and release) process, we still need the switch.
>>>
>>> One step at a time…..
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java 7
>>>>> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
>>>>> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
>>>>> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android, etc).
>>>>> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
>>>>> Artemis?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
>>>>>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
>>>>>> any other options back then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
>>>>>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
>>>>>> difficult that would be though
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with Java8
>>>>>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
>>>>>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that only
>>>>>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc processing
>>>>>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new config
>>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
>>>>>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7 or 8
>>>>>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
>>>>>>> the config selectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation was
>>>>>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a better
>>>>>>>> way to solve that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK 1.8.  (I
>>>>>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped something.. but
>>>>>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7 runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8 to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

John D. Ament-2
Added javadoc:javadoc to the PR builder job...

John

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I found a way to not require bumping the version of maven. just add
> annotation processing to the plugin on the.
>
>
> But if someone could please add javadoc goal on the PR builds and
> build checks please? that's the only change needed for this now.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I have fixed all the javadoc issues on this PR:
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22
> >
> >
> > But I had to use annotation to remove the javadoc annotations on the
> > maven-plugin. And the current maven used on the PR build is not
> > compatible with it:
> >
> > https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/
> >
> >
> >
> > So,
> >
> > @Daniel Can you bump the version at the commit build. Can you also add
> > javadoc as a goal to the build, so we won't break javadoc ever again
> > without being noticed
> > @JustinBertram: Can you do the same
> > @BruceSnyder: Can you add me to the PR user's as I requested on the
> > private list, so I won't need to ask Daniel and Justin again for this
> > kind of thing? :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I will send another commit to bump the minimal Maven version.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Both the PR build and the commit build should include a javadoc build
> >> once we fix those. It's quite easy to break javadoc refs. You just add
> >> javadocs, refactor stuff and boom.. javadoc gets broken.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> True,
> >>>>
> >>>> although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways to
> >>>> not require that setting
> >>>
> >>> I started looking at this.  Definitely a lot more involved than I was
> expecting.  It was definitely the right call to add the setting to get the
> release out.
> >>>
> >>> At this point a “mvn -Pdev install” will now work without that
> setting.   That’s a good start.   The javadoc run in artemis-website now
> will run without an error. (plenty of warnings though)   However, javadoc
> in the individual modules still fails.   Since the javadoc in the modules
> is part of the deploy (and release) process, we still need the switch.
> >>>
> >>> One step at a time…..
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>>> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java 7
> >>>>> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
> >>>>> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
> >>>>> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android, etc).
> >>>>> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
> >>>>> Artemis?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
> >>>>>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
> >>>>>> any other options back then.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
> >>>>>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
> >>>>>> difficult that would be though
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with
> Java8
> >>>>>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
> >>>>>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that
> only
> >>>>>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc
> processing
> >>>>>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new
> config
> >>>>>>> option.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
> >>>>>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7
> or 8
> >>>>>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
> >>>>>>> the config selectively.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation
> was
> >>>>>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a
> better
> >>>>>>>> way to solve that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK
> 1.8.  (I
> >>>>>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped
> something.. but
> >>>>>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly
> easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I
> haven’t attempted the examples yet.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but
> java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7
> runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8
> to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not
> needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the
> ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things
> about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daniel Kulp
> >>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artemis and Eclipse...

clebertsuconic
Cool... I've pushed the Javadoc changes.. no more -Xdoclint... and
minimal JDK = 1.7

We can bump it back to 1.8 whenever needed again.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:43 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Added javadoc:javadoc to the PR builder job...
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:19 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I found a way to not require bumping the version of maven. just add
>> annotation processing to the plugin on the.
>>
>>
>> But if someone could please add javadoc goal on the PR builds and
>> build checks please? that's the only change needed for this now.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > I have fixed all the javadoc issues on this PR:
>> >
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22
>> >
>> >
>> > But I had to use annotation to remove the javadoc annotations on the
>> > maven-plugin. And the current maven used on the PR build is not
>> > compatible with it:
>> >
>> > https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So,
>> >
>> > @Daniel Can you bump the version at the commit build. Can you also add
>> > javadoc as a goal to the build, so we won't break javadoc ever again
>> > without being noticed
>> > @JustinBertram: Can you do the same
>> > @BruceSnyder: Can you add me to the PR user's as I requested on the
>> > private list, so I won't need to ask Daniel and Justin again for this
>> > kind of thing? :)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I will send another commit to bump the minimal Maven version.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> Both the PR build and the commit build should include a javadoc build
>> >> once we fix those. It's quite easy to break javadoc refs. You just add
>> >> javadocs, refactor stuff and boom.. javadoc gets broken.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> True,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways to
>> >>>> not require that setting
>> >>>
>> >>> I started looking at this.  Definitely a lot more involved than I was
>> expecting.  It was definitely the right call to add the setting to get the
>> release out.
>> >>>
>> >>> At this point a “mvn -Pdev install” will now work without that
>> setting.   That’s a good start.   The javadoc run in artemis-website now
>> will run without an error. (plenty of warnings though)   However, javadoc
>> in the individual modules still fails.   Since the javadoc in the modules
>> is part of the deploy (and release) process, we still need the switch.
>> >>>
>> >>> One step at a time…..
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java 7
>> >>>>> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
>> >>>>> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
>> >>>>> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android, etc).
>> >>>>> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
>> >>>>> Artemis?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>>>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This was
>> >>>>>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to evaluate
>> >>>>>> any other options back then.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc and
>> >>>>>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure yet how
>> >>>>>> difficult that would be though
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter with
>> Java8
>> >>>>>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7. You can
>> >>>>>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option, but that
>> only
>> >>>>>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc
>> processing
>> >>>>>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the new
>> config
>> >>>>>>> option.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc to
>> >>>>>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work on 7
>> or 8
>> >>>>>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles to apply
>> >>>>>>> the config selectively.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Robbie
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the equation
>> was
>> >>>>>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps there is a
>> better
>> >>>>>>>> way to solve that.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific to JDK
>> 1.8.  (I
>> >>>>>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped
>> something.. but
>> >>>>>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis now loads fairly
>> easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I
>> haven’t attempted the examples yet.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required to build, but
>> java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7
>> runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8
>> to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume that is not
>> needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the
>> ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things
>> about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> >>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>> >>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> >>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>> >>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> >>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Hiram Chirino
>> >>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >>>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Clebert Suconic
>> >>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> >>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Daniel Kulp
>> >>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Clebert Suconic
>> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com