From dev-return-4467-apmail-openjpa-dev-archive=openjpa.apache.org@openjpa.apache.org Wed Jun 06 18:14:00 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 88763 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2007 18:13:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jun 2007 18:13:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 10553 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jun 2007 18:14:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 10530 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jun 2007 18:14:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 10521 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jun 2007 18:14:00 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:14:00 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of kwsutter@gmail.com designates 64.233.162.225 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.162.225] (HELO nz-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.162.225) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:13:55 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id n1so211437nzf for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Ub6Z09rQ8Db0frUU+VfhS7dZ+izgWRJynN7z5/TmxhKJ+BS5NsFXIAo9lvP5jH2h2O/IExsfMLhlatuLG2mQn7vfJXnKOtxdBUwj1lam5v3p9FmYz53eLSqTvNaMUMIGzKGQMYWU/A6NeM+AmolX73e+67DqBEqA7Uizk0S634I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=e7P96sK2NjFdJ1ZpnlhFOkQ6DhFNji0Z+k8K7YxOidxVx5C0SGg8QXi2amr1AxYPrug3GrTcRPzygE10xozLNnTc2/jxtSpt1E1YLhG5NrRUOtuekRXcZFINUa7ts/4w4oezNiNMbqmQepwG5XK3eXutYr7Cn3V8VTLyEU2p8m4= Received: by 10.114.135.1 with SMTP id i1mr663348wad.1181153614294; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.75.15 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <89c0c52c0706061113i5bbf87d8uebd0aa343e0e392a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 13:13:34 -0500 From: "Kevin Sutter" To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] use backport-concurrent instead of repackaged concurrent classes In-Reply-To: <7262f25e0706060953p5c25b67bw9dd4b1c5c9ca4edb@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_50522_20375242.1181153614223" References: <7262f25e0706041622n54583ff9v19989dae4a8d5f49@mail.gmail.com> <0898E65B-AD8D-44DA-BE47-97C2205A4BE1@apache.org> <7262f25e0706041839i6db068bl70179655f2ea4d8a@mail.gmail.com> <7262f25e0706041858w213313a4t5e058f242d782380@mail.gmail.com> <89c0c52c0706060653n1aab1559t8813df07c592b715@mail.gmail.com> <7262f25e0706060953p5c25b67bw9dd4b1c5c9ca4edb@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_50522_20375242.1181153614223 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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 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 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 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 > ------=_Part_50522_20375242.1181153614223--