openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our post-enhancement processing
Date Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:35:37 GMT
currently tomee depends on a shade of openjpa 2.2.0 where we remove asm
dependency for xbean asm

but it would be a pain to not be able to upgrade because of it no?
(moreover we should avoid shade between ASF projects)

*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*




2012/10/29 Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com>

> 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