Re: Buildfarm error: Broken compatability with JDK 1.4

Did I miss something ? I did not see a patch from Mike.

Dave Cramer

dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mikko Tiihonen
<mikko(dot)tiihonen(at)nitorcreations(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/26/2011 04:41 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Mike Fowler<mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The JDBC buildfarm has been broken since Friday as I've discovered this
>>> morning (see
>>> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl?member=piapiac) All
>>> branches (8.4,9.0,9.1&  HEAD) are failing with the same reason:
>>>
>>> compile:
>>>    [javac] /home/ubuntu/buildarea/HEAD/pgjdbc/build.xml:125: warning:
>>> 'includeantruntime' was not set, defaulting to
>>> build.sysclasspath=last; set to false for repeatable builds
>>>    [javac] Compiling 152 source files to
>>> /home/ubuntu/buildarea/HEAD/pgjdbc/build
>>>    [javac]
>>>
>>> /home/ubuntu/buildarea/HEAD/pgjdbc/org/postgresql/ds/common/PGObjectFactory.java:119:
>>> cannot resolve symbol
>>>    [javac] symbol  : method parseBoolean (java.lang.String)
>>>    [javac] location: class java.lang.Boolean
>>>    [javac]
>>> ds.setBinaryTransfer(Boolean.parseBoolean(binaryTransfer));
>>>    [javac]                                         ^
>>>    [javac]
>>>
>>> /home/ubuntu/buildarea/HEAD/pgjdbc/org/postgresql/jdbc2/AbstractJdbc2ResultSet.java:3129:
>>> cannot resolve symbol
>>>    [javac] symbol  : method valueOf (long)
>>>    [javac] location: class java.lang.Long
>>>    [javac]             throw new PSQLException(GT.tr("Bad value for type
>>> {0} : {1}", new Object[]{targetType, Long.valueOf(val)}),
>>>    [javac]
>>>                                        ^
>>>    [javac] Note: Some input files use or override a deprecated API.
>>>    [javac] Note: Recompile with -deprecation for details.
>>>    [javac] 2 errors
>>>
>>> Both of these method calls - Boolean.parseBoolean() and Long.valueOf() -
>>> are introduced in JDK 1.5. Are we dropping support for 1.4? Given that
>>> the
>>> workaround to maintain 1.4 compatability is so simple (see attached
>>> patch)
>>> I would recommend maintaing support of 1.4.
>>
>>
>> I would agree that we want to keep support for 1.4
>>
>> Mikko, I'm guessing this is mostly from your patches.
>
> Yes, my fault. I have tried to stay away from new APIs - the breakage was
> unintentional.
>
> I'll be more careful in the future, but I do not have any older than 1.6 JVM
> available
> so it is very useful to have the build farm to catch these errors.
>
> If the patch from Mike does not get committed I'll create one tomorrow.
>
> -Mikko
>