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: release or not?
Date Sat, 07 Jun 2014 06:19:45 GMT
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*
>

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