openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our post-enhancement processing
Date Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:48:07 GMT
If ASM4 is providing functionality for java7 which the older version cannot provide then I
see no reason to not work towards using ASM4 in TomEE as well. This should not be a blocker
for OpenJPA but more some a point which we have to be aware of and need to handle some way.


LieGrue,
strub




----- Original Message -----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 2:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our post-enhancement processing
> 
> Yep but it is not as easy as you say since thats internals and both will
> not be tested IMO
> Le 27 oct. 2012 01:57, "David Blevins" <david.blevins@gmail.com> 
> a écrit :
> 
>>  Fork is not the right word.  Patch maybe, but even that can easily be
>>  avoided.
>> 
>>  If we had abstraction so there wasn't a hard dependency on 
> "ASM" we could
>>  supply our own shaded version, that would be more than enough.
>> 
>>  -David
>> 
>> 
>>  On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  > If so tomee will fork openjpa to use xbean asm shade...
>>  >
>>  > Tomee cares about size
>>  > Le 26 oct. 2012 00:23, "Kevin Sutter" 
> <kwsutter@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>  >
>>  >> Hi Mark,
>>  >> Yes, Romain raised this point to me on a separate thread.  From 
> what I
>>  can
>>  >> tell TomEE is using OpenJPA 2.2.0.  Since your changes for 
> openjpa-2171
>>  >> only went into trunk, I'm wondering where the dependency is 
> being
>>  managed.
>>  >> So, yes, we do need some input from the TomEE team as to whether 
> this
>>  type
>>  >> of change would affect them.
>>  >>
>>  >> Another alternative is to provide a shaded jar that embeds and 
> hides the
>>  >> ASM deliverable within the OpenJPA jar.  Yes, that jar would grow
>>  slightly
>>  >> (46K), but then nobody would be wiser as to what version of ASM is 
> being
>>  >> used.
>>  >>
>>  >> Anyway, let's keep the conversation going...  Thanks!
>>  >>
>>  >> Kevin
>>  >>
>>  >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Mark Struberg 
> <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>  wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >>> Hi Kevin!
>>  >>>
>>  >>> We must also make sure to not hit a major incompat with tomee 
> and other
>>  >>> systems.
>>  >>> I'll ping David and Romain so they can test this a bit.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> LieGrue,
>>  >>> strub
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> ----- Original Message -----
>>  >>>> From: Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com>
>>  >>>> To: users@openjpa.apache.org; dev@openjpa.apache.org
>>  >>>> Cc:
>>  >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:15 PM
>>  >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our 
> post-enhancement
>>  >>> processing
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> Hi,
>>  >>>> Some of you may have noticed a recent JIRA I opened up:
>>  >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2283
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> I created this for upgrading our current usage of ASM 3.2 
> to ASM 4.0.
>>  >>>> OpenJPA uses ASM for some post-enhancement processing to 
> clean up the
>>  >>> stack
>>  >>>> map tables that are required for Java 7 validation.  Since 
> ASM 4 has
>>  >> more
>>  >>>> complete support for Java 7, I thought it would be an 
> easy,
>>  >>>> preventative-care type of move.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> As my JIRA indicates, I have run into a couple of hiccups 
> with this
>>  >> move
>>  >>>> that I am still working through.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> But, in general, does anybody have a concern with this 
> upgrade?  I'm
>>  >> only
>>  >>>> looking to do trunk at the moment.  But, if we continue to 
> hit Java 7
>>  >>>> validation errors in 2.2.x, then I might consider moving 
> it back to
>>  >> 2.2.x
>>  >>>> as well.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> Thanks for any input,
>>  >>>> Kevin
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>
>> 
>> 
> 

Mime
View raw message