commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Florey" <daniel.flo...@web.de>
Subject Re: AW: AW: [proposal] avoiding jar version nightmares
Date Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:29:19 GMT
I think handling different versions of classes/jars at VM level would be a nice feature, but
it would be very hard to implement nd to understand when it comes to reflection.
Another proposal would be to do it the j2se-way:
When introducing new features to a package (e.g. java.io) don't include the version number
in the package name, but call it new (e.g. java.nio).
So what about:
org.apache.commons.component
gets 
org.apache.commons.ncomponent
in its next incompatible version.
The next incompatible change will result in
org.apache.commons.vncomponent (very new component)
Each major version step will add a leading v-character 
After five major versions, the five v-characters can be replaced by an 'a' (absolutely new)
So this might be a way to handle many different major versions without adding the nasty version
number to the project name, but indicate clearly what the package is all about.
BTW: How will digester2 manage this problem? Is it not a good starting point to call the package
digester2 or digester-2 or ndigester or whatever?
Cheers,
Daniel


"Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org> schrieb am 20.12.04
01:11:00:
> 
> The ability to declare your own versioning information, and that of
> your dependencies, in a MANIFEST.MF file already exists:
> 
>   http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/extensions/versioning.html
> 
> Two existing use cases for this information are applets and servlet
> containers, where the container should examine the manifest of the
> applet itself (or the WAR in the case of a webapp) and reject
> execution if the specified versions of the declared dependencies are
> not present.  But nothing stops a container from doing more with this
> info (see below for one idea).
> 
> What's missing today at the *language* level is the ability to load
> incompatible versions into the same class loader.  That would take
> language and JVM architecture changes -- if that's important to you,
> go find the threads on ServerSide or JavaLobby about providing
> feedback to the requirements for Mustang (JDK 1.6), since that's the
> earliest time we could actually get it into the language itself.
> 
> In the mean time, nothing stops a servlet container provider from
> assembling dynamically an appropriate parent class loader that
> contains just the specified dependencies (instead of, or in addition
> to, the kind of thing that Tomcat does with its "shared" and "common"
> class loaders).  That way, one could provide webapp A with version 1
> of the library, and webapp B with version 2 of the same library, which
> is pretty much equivalent to what you describe for .NET.  Seems like a
> good RFE for Tomcat ...
> 
> However, this won't solve the "two incompatible versions in the same
> webapp" use case -- for that, you'll still need to use child class
> loaders.  It sounds like this would also be true in the .NET
> environment???
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:37:43 -0500, Matt Sgarlata
> <sgarlatm@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> > Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:10:32 -0500, Matt Sgarlata
> > > <sgarlatm@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> > >>How do we go about petitioning Sun for something like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > A while back now (while the details for Tiger were being planned), I
> > > happened to be in a meeting with Graham Hamilton (who basically owns
> > > the direction that J2SE is going from a Sun perspective), talking
> > > about the very issue of class loaders and the contortions that you
> > > have to go through in order to implement things like webapp reloading.
> > >  I asked him for a Christmas present to all Java developers -- add
> > > something like ClassLoader.unloadClass() or ClassLoader.replaceClass()
> > > to deal with things like this.  He said "hmm ... that's a hard
> > > problem" and proceeded to describe several of the places where
> > > implementing this would be extremely difficult (and/or would have
> > > nasty performance impacts) in the current architecture of JVMs.
> > 
> > Well what about introducing the versioned library approach that is done
> > in .NET?  I'm not familiar with the details myself, but Chris Lambrou
> > wrote earlier:
> > 
> > The .NET equivalent of a jar file is called an assembly. For libraries,
> > this is basically a DLL. Every time the code is compiled, the DLL is
> > automatically allocated a unique version number. When you compile your
> > code that refers to code in a library assembly, your assembly has an
> > explicit dependency on that library assembly. At runtime, when your code
> > tries to invoke the library code, an exception will be raised if the
> > exact version of the library assembly is not available.
> > 
> > It would appear that if there are bug fixes or other improvements to the
> > library, and a recompiled assembly DLL is substituted for the one you
> > originally compiled against, then your code will break. At runtime, your
> > code will fail to link to the library code, since the version number no
> > longer matches. Obviously, a maintenance release of a library component
> > shouldn't require a recompilation and redeployment of all software that
> > uses the library, so .NET provides a mechanism for you to explicitly
> > define a version number. This allows you to provide updated library
> > components to users without requiring them to recompile. However, this
> > only works if you don't break backwards compatibility.
> > 
> > If you break backwards compatibility in a library, then you have to
> > change the version number. However, .NET still allows you to deploy
> > different, incompatible versions of the same DLL. When you deploy the
> > application, your installer has to register both versions of the DLL
> > with the GAC - the Global Assembly Cache. In this way, if you have a
> > complex application that contains two components that rely on
> > incompatible versions of the same library DLL, the VM instantiates two
> > separate versions of the library DLL, and links the two components to
> > the appropriate instance.
> > 
> > One possible Java analogy to this would be to bundle all code inside jar
> > archives. Each jar contains dependency information, perhaps stored in
> > the manifest, or some other meta-file, that describes the jar's own name
> > and version number, and a list of the names and version numbers of its
> > dependencies. A suitable class loader can then use this meta information
> > to stitch the classes together appropriately. Actually, my knowledge of
> > java class loaders isn't  sufficient for me to assert that this solution
> > would definitely work, but it's a start, and I hope all of this serves
> > to illustrate how .NET allows multiple versions of the same library to
> > coexist.
> > 
> > 
> > > Regarding the original use case in this thread (an app that wants to
> > > use two modules that have conflicting versions of common
> > > dependencies), about the best you can do right now is to have your
> > > application create its own class loaders for the modules involved, and
> > > set up their classpaths to pick up their own versions of the
> > > dependencies.  That is essentially what a servlet container does
> > > (creates a class loader for each webapp) to maintain separation, and
> > > allows each webapp to load its own version of a common dependency JAR
> > > from its own "class path" ... the /WEB-INF/classes and /WEB-INF/lib
> > > directories of that app.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > 
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


__________________________________________________________
Mit WEB.DE FreePhone mit hoechster Qualitaet ab 0 Ct./Min.
weltweit telefonieren! http://freephone.web.de/?mc=021201


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message