harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tony Wu" <wuyue...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Date Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:58:45 GMT
what about Javassist? IIRC Jboss, Tapestry and hivemind are using it.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> SERP is another possibility. I know OpenJPA uses it.
>
> http://serp.sourceforge.net/
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok - i'll have a look at ASM and report back.
>>
>> On 21/07/2008, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sian January wrote:
>> >
>> >> ASM might be a good candidate.  I haven't looked closely to see if it
>> >> provides everything we need, but it was apparently designed to be as
>> small
>> >> and as fast as possible, which would be good for pack200.  It's under a
>> >> BSD
>> >> license - would that be ok for us?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html)
>> >
>> > We would will still have to keep BCEL 5.2 while Yoko depends on it, but I
>> >> don't see why we can't use something different for pack200 and any other
>> >> Harmony uses.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Tim
>> >
>> > On 19/07/2008, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project
>> isn't
>> >>> going anywhere.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Nathan
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <
>> >>> sianjanuary@googlemail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again.  I had a
>> >>>>
>> >>> conversation
>> >>>
>> >>>> with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it
seems
>> >>>>
>> >>> very
>> >>>
>> >>>> unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future.
>>  There
>> >>>>
>> >>> is
>> >>>
>> >>>> apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no
>> >>>> ongoing
>> >>>> development apart from that.  There is some interest in testing
a
>> >>>> release
>> >>>> candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's
>> >>>> anyone
>> >>>> available to build one.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing
an
>> >>>> non-release build into Harmony?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sian
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1]
>> >>>>
>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new
>> release
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> :)
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2008/6/12, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all
the needed
>> >>>>>>  features.  There are a few useful methods that I would
expect to
>> see
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> there
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly
easily.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> switch
>> >>>
>> >>>> to
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last
release
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>  years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number
of
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> years
>> >>>
>> >>>> due
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  to little active development I wouldn't think the risk
is very
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> high.  Also
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it
doesn't
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> affect
>> >>>
>> >>>> that
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  much of the class library.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future
is
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> unlikely,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> but
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list,
so I
>> will
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> do
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  first.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  Thanks,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  Sian
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>  >
>> >>>>>>  > Does latest available sources support all the needed
features?
>> >>>>>>  > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand
current
>> >>>>>>  > status of the sources. It is probably not the best
idea to switch
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>
>> >>>>   > bleeding sources..
>> >>>>>>  >
>> >>>>>>  > SY, Alexey
>> >>>>>>  >
>> >>>>>>  > 2008/6/12, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>:
>> >>>>>>  > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which
is the latest
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> released
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  > >  version (from June 2006).  However it doesn't
support all the
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Java
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> 5
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  > class
>> >>>>>>  > >  file features, which is making it complicated
to implement
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> pack200
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> (and
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  > also
>> >>>>>>  > >  means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly
when we
>> have
>> >>>>>>  > one).  There
>> >>>>>>  > >  is support for these features in HEAD, but I
don't think
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> there's
>> >>>
>> >>>> much
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  > active
>> >>>>>>  > >  development going on in BCEL and I can't find
any information
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> about
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> when
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  > a
>> >>>>>>  > >  possible 5.3 might be released.
>> >>>>>>  > >
>> >>>>>>  > >  I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the
latest available
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> source for
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  > >  BCEL.  Does that sound possible?
>> >>>>>>  > >
>> >>>>>>  > >  Thanks,
>> >>>>>>  > >
>> >>>>>>  > >  Sian
>> >>>>>>  > >
>> >>>>>>  > >
>> >>>>>>  > >
>> >>>>>>  > >  --
>> >>>>>>  > >  Unless stated otherwise above:
>> >>>>>>  > >  IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
and Wales
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>
>> >>>> number
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  > >  741598.
>> >>>>>>  > >  Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour,
Portsmouth,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Hampshire
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> PO6
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>  > 3AU
>> >>>>>>  > >
>> >>>>>>  >
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> >>>>>>  IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
Wales with
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> number
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>  741598.
>> >>>>>>  Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
Hampshire
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> PO6
>> >>>
>> >>>> 3AU
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>> number
>> >>>> 741598.
>> >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6
>> >>>>
>> >>> 3AU
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>> 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>
>



-- 
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
View raw message