openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick Linskey" <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] use backport-concurrent instead of repackaged concurrent classes
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:39:07 GMT
I'm allergic to re-namespacing... why do you think that we should do so?

-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

Mime
View raw message