[izpack-devel] Another patch suggestion: setting multiple variables in radio fields

Bartz, Klaus Klaus.Bartz at coi.de
Wed Jul 19 15:24:59 CEST 2006

Hi Joachim,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: izpack-devel-bounces at lists.berlios.de
>[mailto:izpack-devel-bounces at lists.berlios.de]On Behalf Of 
>Joachim Hofer
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:13 PM
>To: izpack-devel at lists.berlios.de
>Subject: Re: [izpack-devel] Another patch suggestion: setting multiple
>variables in radio fields
>Tino Schwarze wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Joachim Hofer wrote:
>>> another thing I needed to add...
>>> Scenario: The user selects a JDBC driver type via radio buttons. The
>>> application has two variables "$jdbcURL" and "$jdbcClass" 
>that need to
>>> be substituted in various configuration files. The current 
>radio field
>>> can only set one of them. We need to set both at once.
>> Well, the ultimate solution would be conditional inputs 
>(like choosing
>> type of database first, then displaying only settings 
>applicable for the
>> selected type). But this is already helpful. :-)
>Sure... - but I don't want to torment the setup user with 
>technical JDBC
>details too much, and therefore I want to silently set those variables.
>However, conditional inputs combined with "hidden" fields 
>would probably
>do the trick quite nicely (adding another feature to the ultimate
>solution). :-)
>>> The patch is combined with my previous patch suggestion, as 
>I haven't
>>> branched separately.
>> Thanks for your work - could you please submit your patch again in
>> unified diff format (pass -u to diff).
>Sorry for my knowing-nothing-about-diff. I was relying on some visual
>diff tool. Oh, I just realize that it was based on the latest release
>version of the file, not on the one from the svn trunk...
>Now, I have included a unified diff to the release version (3.8.1) -
>which I have tested and am working with - as well as the diff 
>generates for the latest trunk revision (1492) when I apply my changes
>to it - which compiles, but is yet untested.
>I hope you can use one of these.
>>> I also cleaned up two compiler warnings happening with jdk 
>1.5 (though
>>> this will probably stop compilation with jdk 1.4 if that 
>has still been
>>> working before).
>> I'm not sure about our policy regarding the compiler. At least, the
>> installer should run on Java 1.3 IIRC.
>I haven't tested it with older Java versions. No problem with leaving
>those two cleanups out of the patch if you want. In fact, I 
>just noticed
>that they don't compile in your standard build. :-( So I changed them
>again for the 1492 diff.

I think we should not use the Java language extensions of version 5.0
in the moment. It is possible to do some things dependent on the
VM version but things like parameterized types cannot be used because
it is not possibel (I think) to compile with compiler compliance 1.4.
Since IzPack 3.8 the "lowest" VM version is 1.4.
If your develop tool creates warnings with 5.0, use VM 1.4 or
compliance to 1.4.
I am just going to 5.0, but there are more than one people which do
not go to 5.0 until the crashes at end of installation are foretime.

>Joachim Hofer
>imbus AG



More information about the izpack-devel mailing list