openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Sutter" <kwsut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] use backport-concurrent instead of repackaged concurrent classes
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:13:34 GMT
Thanks for the clarification.  I understood that we were going to replace
Doug's libraries with the backport stuff, but it didn't sound like we were
proposing the binary prereq approach.  I also just checked on the licensing
of the backport stuff (
http://dcl.mathcs.emory.edu/util/backport-util-concurrent/index.php) and it
looks like it's covered by the Creative Commons public domain licensing, so
that's good.  This sounds like an okay approach.

On 6/6/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> 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
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message