Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.de;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=a3pjyd0onfEwfuuNdCBXGAkYNSIg4Q0opuNDqy+GyBx+3CHm3DqU7Uem2RXoWTUiQHA44/i1ptcsc6bRys4EcisoEsDvpfxLh+w/ha7WsAAPGVvzS+QB7ZvOTzbcEM7PVDOApyiiwjEU329UIIKoq+lfAvQVBUDRFcczMA5qcEs=;
References: 
 <CABH8erm=PQ=cwQMh83XEWSxaq0Y2v4OthOT9z+COMJ7-A+WKQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1351200149.64572.YahooMailNeo@web28903.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:22:29 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Reply-To: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our post-enhancement
 processing
To: "dev@openjpa.apache.org" <dev@openjpa.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABH8erm=PQ=cwQMh83XEWSxaq0Y2v4OthOT9z+COMJ7-A+WKQA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Kevin!=0A=0AWe must also make sure to not hit a major incompat with tome=
e and other systems.=0AI'll ping David and Romain so they can test this a b=
it.=0A=0ALieGrue,=0Astrub=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message -----=0A> From:=
 Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com>=0A> To: users@openjpa.apache.org; dev@op=
enjpa.apache.org=0A> Cc: =0A> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:15 PM=0A> =
Subject: [DISCUSS] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our post-enhancement processing=
=0A> =0A> Hi,=0A> Some of you may have noticed a recent JIRA I opened up:=
=0A> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2283=0A> =0A> I created =
this for upgrading our current usage of ASM 3.2 to ASM 4.0.=0A> OpenJPA use=
s ASM for some post-enhancement processing to clean up the stack=0A> map ta=
bles that are required for Java 7 validation.=A0 Since ASM 4 has more=0A> c=
omplete support for Java 7, I thought it would be an easy,=0A> preventative=
-care type of move.=0A> =0A> As my JIRA indicates, I have run into a couple=
 of hiccups with this move=0A> that I am still working through.=0A> =0A> Bu=
t, in general, does anybody have a concern with this upgrade?=A0 I'm only=
=0A> looking to do trunk at the moment.=A0 But, if we continue to hit Java =
7=0A> validation errors in 2.2.x, then I might consider moving it back to 2=
.2.x=0A> as well.=0A> =0A> Thanks for any input,=0A> Kevin=0A>