Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jasonmpell@gmail.com designates
 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jasonmpell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAF8t5Xt1Q=655zztuMUdu8-M1++O40V3RFE=j2Nn99ogLRah7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAF8t5Xv2y3duZygdp+Y8g+8iOZMmoHcpO2UHwtVBNyiHoV0TNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FA02514C-D8C9-4119-8A75-1C05FFB8E143@apache.org>
	<CACBZuv7-4B7hS2TM1_NRbxUDDJg_UppZrYCfX7GJV_zb+0N7xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8t5XsarQVTdYzOZYghxUbcv_wYyDUH38SDp6JAZJJW=mg9VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8t5Xud7DO_RNG7nOSf9WUPHkxnsmyHiJ7bMVzCF8BqiUYCCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8t5XsPU_xQxwWh_VBPyU+=XBvLtp2G+Ai1+P212TgcU1auKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB8XdGCxjkRyqv=aAnd-2wz4qpRxu9puQgT-m4rosFpwa0j_UQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8t5XvbwZpmKfn=e8ef3aXHEy_ahfwuvEEP_vAX89cb3k-=MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACBZuv49+dg6AppYuZ4S418Qd+=dZTOAB5zyPjvSWyFVQjHi-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8t5XsJ_HdrDVfZgm4ee9YUbPimh1+9FL1bpbm+xOHRv=WOXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACBZuv5gDTyzgrbVdiE23s3ZqdnH8-SXVrGRvj8OFuYj6nJhrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8t5Xt1Q=655zztuMUdu8-M1++O40V3RFE=j2Nn99ogLRah7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:15:31 +1000
Message-ID: 
 <CACBZuv5BTuL3srTY7b-hUBJEN2qWT9cAn7OcUR_1xCU_SHiFUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ehcache version used in cxf build
From: Jason Pell <jason@pellcorp.com>
To: Aki Yoshida <elakito@gmail.com>
Cc: dev@cxf.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c365b8daff9704e14cf3c2

--001a11c365b8daff9704e14cf3c2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

I did not get to this this week.  I have been in xtext hell all week, and
performance problems with xtext have continued with no resolution.  I hope
to resolve them in the next day or so.


On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Aki Yoshida <elakito@gmail.com> wrote:

> okay. then i'll wait for you.
>
> 2013/7/7 Jason Pell <jason@pellcorp.com>:
> > I might have time end of next week so leave with me for the moment.
> >
> > On Jul 7, 2013 6:54 AM, "Aki Yoshida" <elakito@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jason,
> >>
> >> I wanted to have a patched snapshot sometime next week. But I am not
> >> around in the beginning of the next week, so I was wondering if you
> wanted
> >> to work on it in the next few days :-). But if you can't find time next
> >> week, I can look at it next week then.
> >>
> >> regards, aki
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/7/5 Jason Pell <jason@pellcorp.com>
> >>>
> >>> It depends when you need it done :-)
> >>>
> >>> Its been on my list of todos for a long time and i am flat out on my
> day
> >>> job with other stuff. Might be able to look at it in a few weeks.
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 5, 2013 10:46 PM, "Aki Yoshida" <elakito@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Colm, all,
> >>>>
> >>>> My mind has been going back and forth :-(
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should make cxf 2.7.x, et al use a reflection based method
> so
> >>>> that we can use either ehcache 2.5.1 or a higher version at runtime.
> If we
> >>>> don't do this and either stick to the current 2.5.1 usage or switch
> to the
> >>>> new 2.5.2 usage, we will have to set its ehcache range to either
> >>>> [2.5.0,2.5.1] or [2.5.2,3.0.0), and that will look sad.
> >>>>
> >>>> For cxf trunk, we can update its compile time dependency to ehcache
> >>>> 2.7.2 and since the code change has to go into 2.7,x, we can also
> include
> >>>> this change for rt/rs/security/sso/saml that uses the create method.
> And we
> >>>> need an equivalent change in wss4j trunk to be consistent.
> >>>>
> >>>> @Jason,
> >>>> Will you be doing the change for cxf or shall I do it or help you some
> >>>> part? Let me know.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks.
> >>>> aki
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2013/7/5 Colm O hEigeartaigh <coheigea@apache.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Aki,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> EHCacheManagerHolder has only been moved to WSS4J trunk and so only
> >>>>> affects
> >>>>> CXF trunk. It still exists in CXF 2.7.x. I think you are probably
> >>>>> right,
> >>>>> and that we should only upgrade EhCache for CXF trunk and not 2.7.x.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Colm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Aki Yoshida <elakito@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > I just noticed that EHCacheManagerHolder used in cxf trunk has been
> >>>>> > moved
> >>>>> > to wss4j-ws-security-common''s org.apache.wss4j.common.cache. So
> this
> >>>>> > handling needs to be done there. This component currently has the
> >>>>> > same
> >>>>> > setting like in cxf's 2.7.x (i.e, compiles with 2.5.1, uses
> create()
> >>>>> > and
> >>>>> > sets the range [2.5.0, 3.0.0).
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Maybe, there are other components that are also using 2.5.1 with
> this
> >>>>> > default 2.5 range and if these rely on the old behavior, they
> cannot
> >>>>> > upgrade to ehcache to 2.5.2 or higher. So maybe it may not be a
> good
> >>>>> > idea
> >>>>> > to change cxf 2.7.x's ehcache's lower range to 2.5.2.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > @Colm
> >>>>> > are you reading this thread?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > thanks.
> >>>>> > aki
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 2013/7/4 Aki Yoshida <elakito@gmail.com>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > > maybe I should revert my opinion.
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > if we can change the cxf 2.7.x et al branches to require ehcache
> >>>>> > > 2.5.2,
> >>>>> > > that will be probably better than putting more effort to support
> >>>>> > > 2.5.1.
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > 2013/7/4 Aki Yoshida <elakito@gmail.com>
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > >> hi,
> >>>>> > >> thanks all for the information.
> >>>>> > >>
> >>>>> > >> Is this issue about the manager instance that is created using
> the
> >>>>> > create
> >>>>> > >> method in the newer version (eg., 2.5.2 and also 2.6.6, etc)
> being
> >>>>> > >> a
> >>>>> > >> singleton? In other words, in the newer version to have the same
> >>>>> > behavior,
> >>>>> > >> the newly introduced method newInstance needs to be instead
> >>>>> > >> called?
> >>>>> > >>
> >>>>> > >> If that's the case, we should put the code to handle both cases
> in
> >>>>> > >> all
> >>>>> > >> code lines.
> >>>>> > >>
> >>>>> > >> thanks.
> >>>>> > >> aki
> >>>>> > >>
> >>>>> > >>
> >>>>> > >> 2013/7/4 Jason Pell <jason@pellcorp.com>
> >>>>> > >>
> >>>>> > >>> Sorry guys i never got back to this one. Would be easier i
> should
> >>>>> > >>> think
> >>>>> > >>> to fix this for 3.0 and no longer support the old version at
> all
> >>>>> > >>> thus
> >>>>> > no
> >>>>> > >>> reflection magic.
> >>>>> > >>> On Jul 4, 2013 7:04 AM, "Daniel Kulp" <dkulp@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>> > >>>
> >>>>> > >>>> Aki,
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>> This was on my todo list to look at, just never have managed
> to
> >>>>> > >>>> find
> >>>>> > >>>> the time.   There is an issue logged about it:
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4577
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>> If you have time, feel free to grab it and see what you can
> find
> >>>>> > >>>> out.
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>> Dan
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>> On Jul 3, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Aki Yoshida <elakito@gmail.com>
> >>>>> > >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>> > cxf's trunk and branches (2.7.x, 2.6.x, etc) all use ehcache
> >>>>> > >>>> > 2.5.1
> >>>>> > and
> >>>>> > >>>> > create the karaf feature with the corresponding smx's bundle
> >>>>> > version.
> >>>>> > >>>> But
> >>>>> > >>>> > the version range specified in the package imports is set as
> >>>>> > >>>> [2.5.0,3.0.0),
> >>>>> > >>>> > so we could use a newer version in runtime.
> >>>>> > >>>> >
> >>>>> > >>>> > As ehcache 2.5.1 is rather old (from 2012-01) and there are
> >>>>> > >>>> > newer
> >>>>> > >>>> versions
> >>>>> > >>>> > such as 2.6.6 (2013-05) and 2.7.2 (2013-07) which is already
> >>>>> > >>>> > an
> >>>>> > >>>> > osgi-bundle,  I was wondering if we can use a newer version
> >>>>> > >>>> > for
> >>>>> > >>>> trunk's
> >>>>> > >>>> > build. There are some disappeared classes and other changes,
> >>>>> > >>>> > but the
> >>>>> > >>>> usage
> >>>>> > >>>> > in cxf seem to be compatible with these versions. I tried
> both
> >>>>> > >>>> > 2.6.6
> >>>>> > >>>> and
> >>>>> > >>>> > 2.7.2, and the build itself seems to run without problems.
> >>>>> > >>>> >
> >>>>> > >>>> > How do you think about upgrading ehcache to ehcache 2.7.2
> for
> >>>>> > >>>> > trunk
> >>>>> > >>>> so that
> >>>>> > >>>> > we can test cxf not just against old ehcache 2.5.1?
> >>>>> > >>>> >
> >>>>> > >>>> > As comparison, camel trunk uses ehcache 2.7.0, while 2.11.x
> >>>>> > >>>> > uses
> >>>>> > >>>> 2.5.2.
> >>>>> > >>>> >
> >>>>> > >>>> > regards, aki
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>> --
> >>>>> > >>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>>> > >>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>>> > >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>> > >>
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Colm O hEigeartaigh
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Talend Community Coder
> >>>>> http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>

--001a11c365b8daff9704e14cf3c2--