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 Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:14:04 GMT
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