openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Sutter <kwsut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: release or not?
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:07:47 GMT
Hi,
Rick has created a JIRA and posted a proposed patch for this flexible ASM
integration:  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2514

I'd like to shift this ASM integration discussion over to that JIRA.  If
the direction of that JIRA and the patch is acceptable, then we might be
able to skip this extra "2.4.0" release since ASM 5 could be supported with
both the 2.2.x and 2.3.x service streams.  We could put trunk back to
supporting Java 7 for future development.

Kevin


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2014-06-07 13:25 GMT+02:00 Rick Curtis <curtisr7@gmail.com>:
>
> > > Main issue is testing.
> > I don't follow what is so hard to test this?
> >
> >
> You'll need to test against several asm versions, cxf needed multiple
> releases to do it and OpenJPA build is already hurtful enough to not make
> it worse IMHO.
>
>
> > > it adds a lot of complexity
> > That isn't true, there is very little complexity involved.
> >
> >
> It is since you need to redefine a part of asm API to be able to support it
> properly. ASM API is not stable between majors and it is easily broken
> (typicaly asm4/5 new boolean interface broke several code).
>
>
> > > without any gain.
> > Doing this would allow us to have a single release that is built with
> java6
> > but supports both 6 and 7.
> >
> >
> I don't get it, asm5 works with all java versions so it is enough.
>
>
> >  > but then will be totally broken when we'll rework enhancement to get
> rid
> > of other bytecode libs.
> > I don't for see us getting rid of serp anytime soon... My feeling is that
> > piece of work is going to be very risky.
> >
> >
> >
> Not sure we have the choice. Serp already doesn't support java 8. It
> doesn't shout but bytecode will be broken if you really use advanced/new
> features.
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Main issue is testing. We globally judged it doesnt worth it cause it
> > adds
> > > a lot of complexity without any gain.
> > >
> > > Side note: it works with some effort  today but then will be totally
> > broken
> > > when we'll rework enhancement to get rid of other bytecode libs.
> > >  Le 6 juin 2014 21:20, "Rick Curtis" <curtisr7@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Is there a reason why we can't have OpenJPA run against asm 4 OR asm
> > 5? I
> > > > hacked together a patch that adds logic/code so that we will load
> > > asm4/asm5
> > > > depending on what is available in the environment. I think Romain
> tried
> > > to
> > > > do something like this originally, but didn't quite get it working.
> > This
> > > > change requires that we add some additional compile time
> dependencies,
> > > but
> > > > those dependencies aren't shipped and we'll only try to use the
> > > > reflectively.
> > > >
> > > > Take a look at the attached patch to see if this is something that
> > might
> > > > help.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Sounds good.  I'll reopen OPENJPA-2459, temporarily back out the
> Java
> > 7
> > > >> update, and commit.  Still looking for resource to do the full
> release
> > > >> cycle...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi Kevin,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think best is to do next release from frunk with java 6
> constraint
> > > >> then
> > > >> > branch a 2.4.x and re-upgrade trunk to 7.
> > > >> > Le 2 juin 2014 23:17, "Kevin Sutter" <kwsutter@gmail.com>
a
> écrit :
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > As I look into this a bit, what is the best way to take
out the
> > > Java 7
> > > >> > > support from the 2.4.0 release and 2.4.x branch?  Remove
it from
> > > trunk
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > then cut the release/branch?  Or, cut the release/branch
and
> then
> > > >> revert
> > > >> > > the Java 7 changes to build with Java 6 again?  Any preference?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Kevin
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <
> > > >> jeanouii@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > hum, a part from Mark which is, yes, over loader I
guess,
> dunno
> > > >> anyone
> > > >> > > else
> > > >> > > > in OpenJPA project that can help on that area.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > JLouis
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > 2014-06-02 17:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >  >  Let's us know if and how we can help.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Do you have OpenJPA karma to do the release process?
 :-)
> > >  That's
> > > >> > what
> > > >> > > > > we're short on right now.  We have a few people
that have
> left
> > > >> > recently
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > we have a few where their "day job" is getting
in the way.
> >  So,
> > > >> > that's
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > biggest inhibitor.  I know Mark helped out on
the last
> release
> > > we
> > > >> did
> > > >> > > > > (2.3.0), but I'm hearing that his day job is taking
up mucho
> > > time
> > > >> as
> > > >> > > > > well...  I'll dig around and see if we can get
somebody to
> > help
> > > >> out.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Kevin
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
<
> > > >> > > jeanouii@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Looks like a good plan to me. Relevant and
perfectly fits
> > what
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > need
> > > >> > > > > (in
> > > >> > > > > > TomEE at least)
> > > >> > > > > > Let's us know if and how we can help.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > 2014-05-30 22:34 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter <
> kwsutter@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Yeah, I see your point.  Maybe it would
be better to
> have
> > > >> 2.4.x
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > ASM
> > > >> > > > > > 5
> > > >> > > > > > > to support Java 8 and then make trunk
(2.5.0) be
> mainline
> > > >> > > development
> > > >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > JPA 2.1.  Let's not worry about the
work effort at this
> > > point,
> > > >> > > let's
> > > >> > > > > just
> > > >> > > > > > > discuss what's the right answer.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Even if we wanted to cut a 2.4.0 release,
we'd have to
> > > revert
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > build
> > > >> > > > > > > environment from Java 7 back to Java
6 for your needs.
>  Is
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > > right?
> > > >> > > > > >  Or,
> > > >> > > > > > > would the build of OpenJPA with Java
7 be okay?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > So, we would end up with...
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 2.3.x - ASM 4 with Java 6 (Pre-Java
8 usage)
> > > >> > > > > > > 2.4.x - ASM 5 with Java 6 (Useful for
TomEE and maybe
> > other
> > > >> > OpenJPA
> > > >> > > > > > > environments wishing to use Java 8)
> > > >> > > > > > > 2.5.0 - ASM 5 with Java 7 (trunk, mainline
development
> for
> > > JPA
> > > >> > 2.1)
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Is this accurate?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Kevin
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jean-Louis
MONTEIRO <
> > > >> > > > > jeanouii@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Hum, not easy then.
> > > >> > > > > > > > Creating a 2.3.1 with ASM 5 to
support java 8 is
> quite a
> > > >> > > > significant
> > > >> > > > > > > change
> > > >> > > > > > > > to just change the latest digit,
isn't it?
> > > >> > > > > > > > From OpenJPA point of view, it's
just a dep update
> with
> > > some
> > > >> > > minor
> > > >> > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > > > as far as I understood, but I would
maybe increment
> the
> > > >> minor
> > > >> > > digit
> > > >> > > > > > > > instead.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Anyway, I agree with Romain. We
can still fork in
> order
> > to
> > > >> > remain
> > > >> > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > > EE 6
> > > >> > > > > > > > compliant but of course, il would
prefer to stick with
> > > >> Apache
> > > >> > > > OpenJPA
> > > >> > > > > > > > project.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > JLouis
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 21:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin
Sutter <
> > > kwsutter@gmail.com
> > > >> >:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >  Would be awesome to
have a 2.4.0 still Java EE 6
> > > >> > compliant,
> > > >> > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > mainly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > a maintenant release and target
Java EE 7 (ie. JPA
> > 2.1)
> > > >> for a
> > > >> > > > 2.5.0
> > > >> > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > 3.0,
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > The 2.3.x stream is for JPA
2.0 level of
> functionality
> > > as
> > > >> > well
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > > 6.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Any additional development
and maintenance for JPA
> 2.0
> > > and
> > > >> > > Java 6
> > > >> > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > targetted for this 2.3.x service
stream.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > The 2.4.0 (trunk) stream was
meant for JPA 2.1 and
> > Java
> > > 7.
> > > >> > >  This
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > main stream for new development.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:30
AM, Jean-Louis
> MONTEIRO
> > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > jeanouii@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Side note, we are WebProfile
1.0 (Java EE 6) so we
> > > >> cannot
> > > >> > > > > embedded
> > > >> > > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > > > > EE
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 7 API (because it's checked
in the certification
> > > tests).
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Would be awesome to have
a 2.4.0 still Java EE 6
> > > >> compliant,
> > > >> > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > mainly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > a maintenant release
and target Java EE 7 (ie. JPA
> > > 2.1)
> > > >> > for a
> > > >> > > > > 2.5.0
> > > >> > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 3.0,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > dunno.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 17:27 GMT+02:00
Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <
> > > >> > > > > jeanouii@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We are waiting for
the 2.4.0 to support Java 8.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > That's the only
library missing to release
> > > >> (OpenWebBeans,
> > > >> > > > XBean
> > > >> > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > > been
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > released last week).
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 16:58
GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter <
> > > >> > > kwsutter@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Romain,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I can't speak
for everybody on our dev list,
> but
> > I
> > > >> don't
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > cycles
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> create an OpenJPA
release just for TomEE.  It
> > > sounds
> > > >> > like
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > > might
> > > >> > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> more TomEE developers
with OpenJPA karma to
> help
> > > out
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > > regard...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Hint, hint...
 :-)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Just curious,
which stream are you looking for
> a
> > > >> release
> > > >> > > > from?
> > > >> > > > > > >  The
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2.3.x
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> service stream,
or the 2.4.0 trunk stream?  If
> > the
> > > >> > latter,
> > > >> > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> realize
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> that this has
been moved to require Java 7 in
> > > >> > preparation
> > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > JPA
> > > >> > > > > > > > 2.1
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> the rest of
Java EE?  Does that matter to you?
> >  If
> > > >> you
> > > >> > are
> > > >> > > > > > looking
> > > >> > > > > > > > > for a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> 2.3.x release,
then I still have two
> outstanding
> > > >> Infra
> > > >> > > JIRAs
> > > >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > doing
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> nightly code
and doc builds...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Sorry that I
can't be of more help, but we've
> > had a
> > > >> few
> > > >> > > > > OpenJPA
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > developers
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> move onto other
"day jobs" and their time on
> > > OpenJPA
> > > >> has
> > > >> > > > > dropped
> > > >> > > > > > > off
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> considerably...
 Just too much work for the
> > people
> > > >> > left...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Kevin
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, May
30, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Romain
> > > Manni-Bucau <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi guys
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > we asked
few weeks ago if we could hope a
> > release
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > tomee
> > > >> > > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > said us
to fork but as we took a bit more
> time
> > to
> > > >> > > prepare
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > release
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > expected
I ask again the question hoping
> > > something
> > > >> > > > changed:
> > > >> > > > > do
> > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> think an
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > openjpa
release is close?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Our constraints
are to let tomee be out in
> june
> > > so
> > > >> > > openjpa
> > > >> > > > > > > release
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> should
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > be on vote
next week (+- few days).
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > wdyt?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Romain
Manni-Bucau
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Twitter:
@rmannibucau
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > LinkedIn:
> > http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Github:
https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Jean-Louis
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Rick Curtis*
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Rick Curtis*
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message