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 17:25:25 GMT
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