openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] use backport-concurrent instead of repackaged concurrent classes
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:59:03 GMT
+1 for binary dependency on backport.

Craig

On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

> No, I'm suggesting that we pull it in as a binary prereq, and that we
> use the backport stuff instead of Doug's old stuff.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 6/6/07, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let me see if I understand the proposal...
>>
>> We want to get an updated version of Doug Lea's concurrency  
>> libraries into
>> OpenJPA.  Not as a binary prereq like Serp or Commons  
>> Collections.  But,
>> rather we will bring the source into the OpenJPA svn repository  
>> and build it
>> like it was ours, but we don't want to change the package names?
>>
>> I think this is asking for problems down the road.  At least with  
>> binary
>> prereqs, we can identify the specific version that we require and  
>> deal with
>> any incompatibilities between releases.  But, if we just bring the  
>> source
>> into our tree without re-packaging, then we have no idea whether  
>> we are
>> running with the version that we ship or some other version that  
>> happens to
>> be available via the application's classpath.  As OpenJPA  
>> continues to be
>> incorporated into larger and larger environments, we have to be  
>> concerned
>> about our prereqs (source or binary) and how they will interact  
>> with the
>> rest of the environment.
>>
>> I would vote to stick with our current practice of bringing in  
>> Doug Lea's
>> libraries and putting them into our own packaging scheme to avoid any
>> possible conflicts with other instances of these libraries.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>> On 6/4/07, Brian McCallister <brianm@skife.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jun 4, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>> >
>> > >  In fact, I think that not repackaging the
>> > > backport classes is a good thing, as it lets people easily  
>> plug in the
>> > > faster Java 5 version without having to then re-repackage those
>> > > classes and recompile them.
>> >
>> > This is a really good reason to not renamespace, actually, as it is
>> > reasonable for people to want to change between distributed  
>> options.
>> >
>> > -Brian
>> >
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message