openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Curtis <curti...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: release or not?
Date Fri, 06 Jun 2014 20:20:05 GMT
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/mixed (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message