search

dileepajayakody / semanticvectors

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/semanticvectors
Other
1 stars 0 forks source link

Please create the official download JAR with JDK 1.6 #57

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The official JAR is built with JDK 1.7, resulting in the following error when 
importing semanticvectors in a JDK 1.6 project:

java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: 
pitt/search/semanticvectors/ZeroVectorException : Unsupported major.minor 
version 51.0

However, the current version of semanticvectors builds find wirh JDK 1.6, so 
there should be no need for 1.7.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by skra...@iquadrat.de on 13 Mar 2012 at 4:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
That's a problem. I'm not entirely sure what the best solution is. I don't want 
to start making releases with different JDK versions. The "Unsupported 
major.minor" issue is not one that I've looked into particularly, I was just 
compiling and running on a new machine and was forced to upgrade the runtime at 
some point, though downgrading the compilation may have worked just as well.

Would there be any problems using a JDK 1.6 jar in JDK 1.7 projects? Should we 
just make sure that hipped jarfiles are compiled with 1.6 until we actually 
need 1.7 features?

At what point is it reasonable to assume that people can just check out and 
compile the code in the environment of their choice? I can see why this is not 
the best solution for component development, of course, but have you got it 
working for now at least?

Thanks,
Dominic

Original comment by dwidd...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2012 at 4:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by dwidd...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2012 at 4:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Generally it's possible to use a JAR compiled with an older JDK in newer Java 
releases, so a Java 1.6 JAR should work without problems in 1.7.

Since semanticvectors doesn't compile with Java 1.5, I suggest to still compile 
it with the lowest version possible, which is 1.6.

Original comment by skra...@iquadrat.de on 14 Mar 2012 at 12:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Apologies for not following through on this. Given which, I'll say we should 
stick with Java 1.7 - we might as well assume that many developers have moved 
forward to 1.7 during 2012.

Please write back / reopen if anyone disagrees.

Original comment by dwidd...@gmail.com on 14 Jan 2013 at 9:26