openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian McCallister <bri...@skife.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] use backport-concurrent instead of repackaged concurrent classes
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:02:11 GMT

On Jun 4, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

> To date, OpenJPA has done minimal repackaging (currently only the EDU
> classes). I'm wary of changing this policy, especially considering how
> few classes we repackage. 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.
>
> Any other opinions?

It is case by case, of course. As mentioned, backport is probably not  
worth repackaging. My tendency, for small libraries, is to prefer  
repackaging :-)

-Brian

>
> -Patrick
>
> On 6/4/07, Brian McCallister <brianm@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2007, at 6:39 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>
>> > I'm allergic to re-namespacing... why do you think that we should
>> > do so?
>>
>> Avoiding collisions. The majority case is that people don't care
>> about the extra 327k but they care a lot about not hitting conflicts
>> with libraries. Dug Lea's libraries are not a great example of this,
>> but Hibernate *is* a good example -- it relies on EHCache by default,
>> going from 3.0 to 3.1 to 3.2 is a major non-backwards compatible
>> change, and you cannot use EHCache 1.2 with 3.0, so you are trapped
>> unable to upgrade dependencies. Weblogic and ANTLR (a couple versions
>> back) is another great example.
>>
>> Basically, if you are a library (which OpenJPA is) you want to
>> minimize the degree to which you place constraints on the runtime
>> environment of your users. I can easily imagine someone using a home-
>> rolled build of the concurrent backport which was subtly
>> incompatible. Yes, your user could renamespace then, but it is better
>> if they *never have the issue*
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>> >
>> > -Patrick
>> >
>> > On 6/4/07, Brian McCallister <brianm@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> I would suggest using backports and repackaging -- though I have
>> >> trouble imaging the interfaces on backports changing. I,  
>> personally,
>> >> am of the opinion that if at all possible, small dependencies  
>> should
>> >> be re-namespaced and bundled.
>> >>
>> >> -Brian
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 4, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > In the process of doing some concurrency-related work on
>> >> OpenJPA, I've
>> >> > run across the need for a ReentrantReadWriteLock, akin to what
>> >> is in
>> >> > Java 5's java.util.concurrent package, Emory University's
>> >> > edu.emory.mathcs.backport package, and Doug Lea's  
>> EDU.oswego.cs.dl
>> >> > package.
>> >> >
>> >> > Currently, OpenJPA has repackaged copies of some of the code  
>> from
>> >> > EDU.oswego.cs.dl, but not everything. I'd like to get rid of the
>> >> > repackaged copies, and move to the versions in
>> >> > edu.emory.mathcs.backport. According to Doug Lea's website, the
>> >> > backport classes are preferable to the EDU.oswego.cs.dl  
>> classes at
>> >> > this point.
>> >> >
>> >> > This change is independent of future changes to allow for
>> >> pluggability
>> >> > of the concurrent implementation, and only impacts those classes
>> >> that
>> >> > we are already directly repackaging.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> > -Patrick
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Patrick Linskey
>> >> > 202 669 5907
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Patrick Linskey
>> > 202 669 5907
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907


Mime
View raw message