geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay D. McHugh" <>
Subject Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Date Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:04:57 GMT
The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
higher version of XBeans.

OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:

And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
have been removed:


Joe Bohn wrote:
> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5.  I
> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375).  However,
> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G.  As a result ... we ended up
> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
> still resolved.  That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
> approach.  I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server.  Perhaps using the various xBean versions
> is still the best thing to do here.  I didn't realize that there were
> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
> Thanks,
> Joe
> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>> My feeling is that it won't though.
>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>> Jay
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>>> got it wrong.
>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1).  So, perhaps if we can
>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joe
>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>> -Donald
>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>>> to a consistent versions.  I noticed this as I was updating
>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5.  In
>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming).  I've been told that this was due to
>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3.  Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>> Joe
>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jarek

View raw message