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] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our post-enhancement processing
Date Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:22:26 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message