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 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:55:54 GMT
All of the 2.0.3 build issues are fixed.

I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know what

If it will build, then I might take a look to see whether I can figure
out what changes are necessary for OpenEJB 3.0.1 to use XBeans 3.5 too.


Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> 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:
> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
> have been removed:
> LinkResolver
> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
> Jay
> 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. 
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3.  Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to
>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot
>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that
>>>>>>> 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