openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Surya Duggirala <jay...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Drop build support for Java 5?
Date Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:33:28 GMT

I see that we are in agreement to keep JPA 2.0 work only with Java 6.0
without any support for Java 5.0. By sticking to only Java 6.0, we will
increase the performance by avoiding those extra reflection costs that we
have now.

-Surya

Michael Dick wrote:
> 
> Hi Craig,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell
> <Craig.Russell@sun.com>wrote:
> 
>> Database users are notorious for wanting stability, even if it means
>> running back-level releases. Somehow they manage to coerce vendors into
>> supporting them on their running systems.
>>
>> To get an accurate idea of our users' requirements, perhaps we need to
>> include users@ in this discussion. Done. See" To:" line above.
>>
>> But it's also clear that OpenJPA 2.0 will require Java 6. So I have no
>> issues with making the switch for 2.0.
>>
> 
> This is my thinking too. One concern I have is that we have classes which
> do
> not compile with Java 5 (we skip them). So unwary contributors might think
> they've built OpenJPA but they're actually missing a few bits.
> 
> But is it a problem staying with Java 5 for the 1.x lines?
>>
> 
> I'm definitely not proposing that. I don't think we can do something like
> this in a shipped release and 1.3.x doesn't *need* Java 6 (at least not
> yet).
> 
> -mike
> 
> 
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>>
>>  I agree that we need to do something.  Running with our current module
>>> setup
>>> requires additional configuration to ensure that everything compiles
>>> cleanly
>>> [1].  Right now, I have to change openjpa-jdbc, openjpa-persistence, and
>>> openjpa-persistence-jdbc to Java 6 in order to get a clean compile
>>> within
>>> Eclipse.  This is due to the JDBC 4 requirements and the annotation
>>> processor changes.  I'm okay with only doing the proposed compiler
>>> update
>>> change for these three modules to start with.  As it stands right now,
>>> it
>>> looks and feels clumsy...
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> [1]  http://openjpa.apache.org/building.html
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>  Resurrecting this thread.
>>>>
>>>> We're nearing the EOL for the non business version of Java SE 5.0
>>>> (business
>>>> edition will be available for quite a while - unless the new management
>>>> changes the plan) [1] .
>>>>
>>>> When 5.0 goes out of service I'd propose upgrading OpenJPA to require
>>>> JDK
>>>> 6.0 to compile. The compiled bytecode can be set to 1.5 if that's a
>>>> concern.
>>>> I'd prefer to have all the modules use jdk 6 to avoid some of the
>>>> headaches
>>>> we had in OpenJPA 1.0.x with supporting 1.4 but we can restrict it to
>>>> only
>>>> the ones that need it (persistence, persistence-jdbc) if that's more
>>>> amenable.
>>>>
>>>> In addition we can set up a new integration module which runs a subset
>>>> of
>>>> tests with Java 5. It will be optional (since Java 5 won't be readily
>>>> available in 3 months), but at least we'd have some barometer for
>>>> whether
>>>> OpenJPA works in that environment. We'll have to do some classpath
>>>> swizzling
>>>> (like we did for 1.4 in the 1.0.x stream) but it *should* be possible.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts, objections, stuff I've missed?
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://java.sun.com/products/archive/eol.policy.html
>>>>
>>>> -mike
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Pinaki Poddar <ppoddar@apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Craig,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This also meets my needs for a stable platform to run a new
>>>>>>> personality without the new Java 6 dependencies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  The current update in trunk runs a configuration that builds OpenJPA
>>>>>> libraries with JDK6 compiler. But other configuration compiles and
>>>>>> runs
>>>>>>
>>>>> our
>>>>
>>>>> test corpus with JDK5. I do not think we have a configuration that
>>>>>>
>>>>> compiles
>>>>
>>>>> OpenJPA with JDK6, compiles test cases with JDK5 and runs test cases
>>>>>>
>>>>> with
>>>>
>>>>> JDK5. May be we should create one. Such configuration will simulate
>>>>> the
>>>>>> target JDK5 user environment with JDK6-compiled OpenJPA where the
>>>>>> test
>>>>>>
>>>>> case
>>>>
>>>>> will play the equivalent role of user application.
>>>>>> (Mike/Jeremy, are you tuned to this channel?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is easier said than done. Depending on how strict one wants to
>>>>> be.
>>>>>
>>>> If
>>>>
>>>>> we rely on the compiler settings (source=1.5, target=1.5) when we
>>>>> compile
>>>>> the testcases then at worst we'd have to add a separate maven module
>>>>> for
>>>>> JDK5 testcases.
>>>>>
>>>>> As we've seen in the past with JDK 1.4 this won't necessarily suffice.
>>>>> We
>>>>> may need to do some additional tweaking to put the 1.5 class libraries
>>>>> on
>>>>> the classpath, or (even more strict) we may need to rebuild with
>>>>> maven's
>>>>> JAVA_HOME set differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be fine with the first approach as part of a normal build
>>>>> (provided
>>>>>
>>>> it
>>>>
>>>>> doesn't double execution time). Either of the later two would need to
>>>>> be
>>>>> optional (like we did with jdk 1.4).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  mission statement for OpenJPA
>>>>>>> "to the implementation of object persistence, including, but
not
>>>>>>> limited to, Java Persistence API, for distribution at no charge
to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> public;"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fully agree and support this view. Compliance to a spec is a
>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>> but not sufficient condition for sustainable interest in a project
of
>>>>>> OpenJPA's scope and breadth. Also one of the strongest feature of
>>>>>>
>>>>> OpenJPA is
>>>>
>>>>> its 'agnostic architecture' to promote the above charter.
>>>>>> As a group we will benefit if we keep the charter in mind and
>>>>>> consider
>>>>>> possibilities to augment OpenJPA functionality that are beyond a
>>>>>>
>>>>> standard
>>>>
>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the agnostic architecture is a strength of OpenJPA and
>>>>> one
>>>>> that we can leverage to promote additional solutions in the ORM space.
>>>>>
>>>> That
>>>>
>>>>> said we are a JPA provider first and foremost and there are limits to
>>>>> the
>>>>> contortions that the "core" OpenJPA engine should make to support
>>>>> other
>>>>> persistence frameworks. Especially those that have not been
>>>>> contributed
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> Apache.
>>>>>
>>>>> To put it another way, our default behavior should be as JPA-like as
>>>>> possible with the option for other frameworks to change the
>>>>> configuration
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> suit their needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  3. If the above appears to be a worthwhile target scenario to
>>>>>>> support, then the dynamic class construction approach perhaps
can
>>>>>>> prove useful than hand-coding JDBC 4 dependency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  4. We take a decision regarding these aspects by mid-April and
>>>>>>> announce it to be effective from, say, mid-June. I am not keen
on
>>>>>>> exact duration of the prior notice but 2 months looked to be
>>>>>>> reasonable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. My concern lies mainly with the dynamic class
>>>>> construction
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> the impact on performance. Introducing additional code path in order
>>>>> to
>>>>> support a backleveled JDK seems wrong to me. Maybe I'm too anxious to
>>>>> be
>>>>>
>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>> the bleeding edge.
>>>>>
>>>>> -mike
>>>>>
>>>>> <more message history snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-build-support-for-Java-5-tp2539470p3537304.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message