| <?xml version="1.0"?> |
| <!-- |
| |
| Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more |
| contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with |
| this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. |
| The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 |
| (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with |
| the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at |
| |
| http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 |
| |
| Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software |
| distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, |
| WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. |
| See the License for the specific language governing permissions and |
| limitations under the License. |
| |
| --><document> |
| <properties> |
| <title>Commons JCI - FAQ</title> |
| <author email="dev@commons.apache.org">Commons Development Team</author> |
| </properties> |
| <body> |
| <section name="FAQ"> |
| <subsection name="Isn't compiler support integrated with Java6 (JSR199)?"> |
| Yes, it is now. JSR199 in the end brought the official java compiler tools that |
| now come with Java 6. Progress on this had stalled for many years. This is how |
| JCI was born. JCI provided what was missing from the JDK. And it still provides |
| it also for earlier versions. The main author of JCI has later on joined the EG |
| and will make sure there is a bridge to the JSR199 API. |
| </subsection> |
| <subsection name="Doesn't JSR199 already deprecate JCI?"> |
| Well, as said before ...there are no backports so far. And if you give the |
| the final java tools API in Java 6 a try you might well come back and |
| enjoy JCI :) |
| </subsection> |
| <subsection name="How well tested is the code?"> |
| Well, there are a couple of projects out there using this code already for |
| quite some time in production. Drools and Cocoon to name just a few well known Open |
| Source projects. Code coverage is not bad at all ...but there still a few things |
| on the TODO list and contributions are always welcome. |
| </subsection> |
| <subsection name="Will the ... compiler be supported?"> |
| There is always room for new implementations. And if the compiler supports compilation to |
| java bytecode, there is also a good chance it can be added. There are currently already a |
| few potential candidates out there. But it all comes down to the need and the time to implement. |
| </subsection> |
| </section> |
| </body> |
| </document> |
