geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Spring/cgllib woes...
Date Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:41:20 GMT
Jules Gosnell wrote:
> Jeremy,
> 
> I've been wondering whether I can do without upgrading cglib for the 
> whole of Geronimo, just doing it for the Spring module, since we use it 
> to build a standard 1.3 proxy. The problem is that this is done at 
> runtime, so I guess that the only version of cglib around will be the 
> one defined in etc/project.properties ?

cglib is a kernel dependency so will be loaded on the system classpath - 
there will only be one version at runtime

> If this is the case, then I think I do need to upgrade it here...
> 
> here are the options:
> 
> 2.0 - no InterfaceMaker (required by SpringGBean proxy code)
> 2.0.1 - InterfaceMaker present but breaks my Geronimo build
> 2.0.2 - InterfaceMaker present - seems not to cause any more exceptions 
> than I already get during my Geronimo build
> 2.1-dev - InterfaceMaker present but breaks my Geronimo build (also 
> involves jar name change and is not yet available via ibiblio)
> 
> I think it would be very unwise for me to make a major change like 
> upgrading the cglib version, without knowing what the current test 
> success rate is, running against the new version and confirming that it 
> does not break anything.... I don't want to impact your J2EE testing.
> 

All unit and integration tests should pass - if not, someone broke 
something and vigourous application of a trout would be in order.

If you are seeing exceptions during the build pre-upgrade please open a 
JIRA issue - or better still, once you've finished wielding the trout, 
fix 'em :-)

> I tried porting InterfaceMaker from 2.0.2 back onto 2.0, but I got an 
> exception out of its superclass when I used it - so the port is 
> non-trivial as it involves class patching as well as addition.
> 

Running with a custom version of cglib doesn't seem like a goodf idea 
anyway.

> So, I shall leave the ball in your court. If you have the time, I should 
> be very grateful if you would kick of a build/test cycle against a 
> version of cglib>2.0 (probably 2.0.2). If it is successful, bump the 
> version, ping me and I shall check in my code. 

I'm currently working on MX4J fixes and am using a older version of 
Geronimo to avoid very similar stability issues (I also have a couple 
busy days at work). Can someone else help look at this for Jules, please?

Does anyone have issue objecting to 2.0.2 either?

--
Jeremy

Mime
View raw message