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] Drop build support for Java 5?
Date Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:33:13 GMT
We've been having this discussion for months (I started this thread back in
March).  From a trunk perspective, I'm not sure why we need a 2 month
warning period.  And, with the EOL fast approaching for Java 5, I'd be
inclined to go ahead with this change "now".  As Mike points out, this will
help with shaking out any potential problems before we attempt to finalize a
JPA 2.0 offering.  Do we need a [VOTE] thread to get this kicked off?

Kevin

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com>wrote:

> I think we've reached at least a rough consensus about dropping JDK5
> support
> for 2.0.0 / trunk..
>
> Are there any concerns about the timing for making the change? Pinaki
> suggested a warning period of two months which would line up with with EOL
> for Java 5 (October 31st). I have a few reservations about waiting that
> long
> to remove the JDK5 wrappers. We'll be close to a release of OpenJPA 2.0.0
> in
> October and it'd be nice to make sure the wrapper-less code gets tested in
> advance.
>
> Are there any objections to making the change sooner (ie this week / early
> next week)?
>
> -mike
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Surya Duggirala <jaydvs@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message