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 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:53:58 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message