geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay D. McHugh" <jaydmch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Date Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:23:22 GMT
Jarek,

I got spoiled by having the integration tests automatically run on 2.2.

I had hoped that the tests were broken before I started - but
unfortunately, it really was me that broke them.

I will find and fix the problem.

Thanks for alerting me to it.

Jay

Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Jay,
> 
> Please run all tests including the integration tests before
> committing. Looks like deployment of some apps is failing after the
> recent changes, for example see:
> http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/2.0/20090204/logs-0200-tomcat/test.log
> 
> Jarek
> 
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jay D. McHugh <jaydmchugh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> happens.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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.  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
>>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>

Mime
View raw message