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 Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:31:32 GMT
Hi,
Does TomEE have a dependency on specific version(s) of OpenJPA?  Currently,
the patch for looking for the xbean and spring shaded versions of ASM is
only in OpenJPA Trunk.  Is TomEE really dependent on OpenJPA Trunk?  I
would have assumed a more stable release would have been selected.

I'm trying to determine the difference between your "next release" and the
"short term release" you are referencing.  That is, what release(s) would
work for this ASM 4 upgrade as it relates to TomEE?  (BTW, we are doing a
similar exercise with WebSphere's usage to determine the proper timeframe
for this upgrade.)

Thanks,
Kevin

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rmannibucau@gmail.com>wrote:

> well tomee don't really care but here we depend on
> 1) xbean (should be doable)
> 2) cxf
>
> that's why i proposed to do next release with xbean 3 and then try to
> upgrade all libs
>
> wdyt? isnt it more pragmatic for short term releases (apache con would be
> fantastic)?
>
> *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
>
>
>
>
> 2012/10/27 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message