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 01:58:31 GMT
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?

-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