[GRADLE-3100] eclipse plugin always uses default JRE container rather than the one for appropriate execution environment Created: 04/Jun/14 Updated: 10/Feb/17 Resolved: 10/Feb/17
|Reporter:||Kris De Volder||Assignee:||Unassigned|
The eclipse plugin doesn't add a convenient JRE container when JVM levels.
For example, you have this in 'build.gradle'
When the eclipse metadata is generated it correctly configures compiler source and target levels but it still attaches a JRE container that uses the workspace default JRE rather than a container of the appropriate level.
I.e. the classpath will contain this:
Rather than this:
That means, depending on what workspace default a user has setup the code may get compiled against the wrong version of the Java libraries.
One can of course workaround this by doing something like this:
But it seems natural for the JRE container to follow source / target levels, especially if they are set both to the same thing.
If source!=target level I'm not sure which one ought to be used. It seems logical to me to follow the 'target' rather than source, because you'd want to compile against the 'lowest' environment you expect your code to run in.
|Comment by Kris De Volder [ 04/Jun/14 ]|
This link contains useful information about 'valid' values for the Execution Environment names:
E.g these are all valid values for standard JREs from 1.1 -> 1.7.
|Comment by Benjamin Muschko [ 15/Nov/16 ]|
As announced on the Gradle blog we are planning to completely migrate issues from JIRA to GitHub.
We intend to prioritize issues that are actionable and impactful while working more closely with the community. Many of our JIRA issues are inactionable or irrelevant. We would like to request your help to ensure we can appropriately prioritize JIRA issues you’ve contributed to.
Please confirm that you still advocate for your JIRA issue before December 10th, 2016 by:
We look forward to collaborating with you more closely on GitHub. Thank you for your contribution to Gradle!
|Comment by Benjamin Muschko [ 10/Feb/17 ]|
Thanks again for reporting this issue. We haven't heard back from you after our inquiry from November 15th. We are closing this issue now. Please create an issue on GitHub if you still feel passionate about getting it resolved.