<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>cheers for the history Alan.</div><div><br></div><div>I wasn't sure if 9-ea was going to be used purely during early access or if a new structure was going to be used.</div><div><br></div><div>is their a source file, java doc or mail list message detailing the changes or new Java 9 setup. So I can reference that in any potential change I submit to open source projects?</div><div><br></div><div>looking at the submitted patch, am I right to assume java.version going forward will be the purely a display string value and java.specification.version should be used to work out the major version number. Should I also assume their will be a java.implementation.version if you need to know the low level build number.</div><div><br></div><div>Not sure if that patch fixes all the issue I'm seeing or not. I'll play around with it when I've next got a sleeping baby on my shoulder and see if I get any further.</div><div><br></div><div>cheers,</div><div>john</div><div><br><div>Sent from my iPhone</div></div><div><br>On 3 Jan 2016, at 08:09, Alan Bateman <<a href="mailto:Alan.Bateman@oracle.com">Alan.Bateman@oracle.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
On 02/01/2016 20:32, John Patrick wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAH9u10nkXdvdWBkpoqia8VeLEZW-OEsUnP=NOtNEUwje2rUcRw@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>evening,<br>
<br>
</div>
Does anyone know how to override the java.version
field?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><span class=""><span></span></span>Wanting to help
out with getting JDK 9 ready, using it and building
projects with it.<br>
<br>
Most patches I've submitted so far as simply bumping
which is the min java version being used from 1.5 to
1.6.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>One issue that I can't figure a work around for
java.version. I'm getting the following error from
maven-javadoc-plugin.<br>
<br>
<span class=""><span>[WARNING] Unable to find the
javadoc version: Unrecognized version of Javadoc:
'java version "9-ea"<br>
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 9-ea+<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://99-2015-12-23-184955.javare.4146.nc">99-2015-12-23-184955.javare.4146.nc</a>)<br>
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 9-ea+<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://99-2015-12-23-184955.javare.4146.nc">99-2015-12-23-184955.javare.4146.nc</a>,
mixed mode)<br>
' near index 37<br>
(?s).*?([0-9]+\.[0-9]+)(\.([0-9]+))?.*<br>
^<br>
[WARNING] Using the Java the version instead of,
i.e. 0.0<br>
[WARNING] -quiet option is not supported on Java
version < 1.4. Ignore this option.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></span></div>
<div><span class=""><span>My question is should maven
and every other project accept 9-ea as a valid
java.version string, or could build 100 plus tweak
the java.version string to something else that is
considered valid.<br>
</span></span></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
In a recent mail to jigsaw-dev [1], Robert Scholte mentioned that
the new version-string scheme may be problematic for some Maven
plugins. He mentions the plexus-archiver specifically and that seems
to have a patch already. If the maven-javadoc-plugin needs updates
too then it's best to get a bug submitted so that it's on someone's
radar.<br>
<br>
-Alan<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2015-December/005885.html">http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2015-December/005885.html</a><br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>