Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 52220 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2009 02:33:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 2009 02:33:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 45753 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2009 02:33:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 45711 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2009 02:33:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 45702 invoked by uid 99); 20 Feb 2009 02:33:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:33:52 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of greensight@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.231 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.198.231] (HELO rv-out-0506.google.com) (209.85.198.231) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:33:43 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g9so614806rvb.3 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:33:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Jm7qymRn3wla7BrS7wqZGhxY+JOgGjXkipvJbceWafA=; b=He8NjJmuU5wLZw5reJ3goYgScWIwYx27097WJrJQCKfOKn3mr/cJBZCMV7EGhuElfe BcxvH0PqvT+zbQ5x3cW5kQHmV+KBGzDH7SQWc6RLK4yD5Q5XSFgqsKYET7tkZjR30Q9O 47Ococ/c5b83Hd8Qp3hot8Q2H6CJVIqApNO70= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=D1/LG7/aFV3+NJXb/lZXqqo1gYav5b3W/HF2FJ33Rm1JQ+RPzMzsBVc58kze4ZOY91 /0oYzyvqXnUvW886q/jjrAJwwXXKVgoNYAnnwPkw3A+HnmIPjWgfaVDR4+p95HXx6zhe bzSRB2jIXRT8tD+LcWcONMmH2tCQbQo/3/X/c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.31.11 with SMTP id i11mr127981wfj.289.1235097202275; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:33:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5eb405c70902050944u40341d5cuc85b2924742dbca9@mail.gmail.com> References: <5eb405c70902031143h2d673801ib626e5b899d8a43c@mail.gmail.com> <4988A276.1020107@earthlink.net> <4988AA93.5090505@apache.org> <4988AE43.20109@earthlink.net> <4988BC2F.5030103@gmail.com> <4988C14B.7040704@earthlink.net> <4988CD99.8020102@gmail.com> <4989AC7A.8070601@gmail.com> <5eb405c70902050944u40341d5cuc85b2924742dbca9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:33:22 +0800 Message-ID: <5e7fd1eb0902191833y870fb7cy17dabb3b24b37afd@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release? From: Jack Cai To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636e900e40137b30463507a18 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001636e900e40137b30463507a18 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We have done some test here with the tranql SQLServer 2000 and 2005 XA connector (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4279), and TranQL Informix XA connector (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4365), both look good. So they should be ready to get into Geronimo 2.1.4. Still trying with the TranQL connector for Oracle RAC - not easy to set up the environment... -Jack 2009/2/6 Jarek Gawor > Jay, > > Updating OpenEJB 3.0.1 to xbean 3.5 will require 2.0.3 and 2.1.4 to > update the asm 3.1 library (and that will need even more changes). I > know some other libs have deps on the asm lib so we might run into > problems later on. > > How about we only upgrade xbean-naming to 3.5 first and leave other > xbean dependencies on 3.4.1? If that doesn't work we can try 3.5 for > everything. > > Jarek > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jay D. McHugh > 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 > >>>>>>>> > > > --001636e900e40137b30463507a18 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We have done some test here with the tranql SQLServer 2000 and 2005 XA conn= ector (http= s://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4279), and TranQL Informix X= A connector (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4365), both look good.= So they should be ready to get into Geronimo 2.1.4.

Still trying with the TranQL connector for Oracle RAC - not easy to set= up the environment...

-Jack

2009/= 2/6 Jarek Gawor <j= gawor@gmail.com>
Jay,

Updating OpenEJB 3.0.1 to xbean 3.5 will require 2.0.3 and 2.1.4 to
update the asm 3.1 library (and that will need even more changes). I
know some other libs have deps on the asm lib so we might run into
problems later on.

How about we only upgrade xbean-naming to 3.5 first and leave other
xbean dependencies on 3.4.1? If that doesn't work we can try 3.5 for everything.

Jarek

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jay D. McHugh <jaydmchugh@gmail.com> wrote:
> All of the 2.0.3 build iss= ues are fixed.
>
> I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know wha= t
> 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 usi= ng 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 version= s 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 wi= th 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 re= flect
>>> 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 x= Bean 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 tha= t 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 long= er builds
>>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>>>>
>>>> Jay
>>>>
>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it&#= 39;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). &nbs= p;So, perhaps if we can
>>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make t= he references
>>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJ= PA 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 g= et our xBean references
>>>>>>> to a consistent versions.  I noticed this= as I was updating
>>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly re= leased 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 u= pdate everything to use
>>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 r= elease. 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 volu= nteer to be a release
>>>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 th= ere 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+Statu= s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there ar= e any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anyth= ing in that list please
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>>
>

--001636e900e40137b30463507a18--