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 Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:25:25 GMT
> Main issue is testing.
I don't follow what is so hard to test this?

> it adds a lot of complexity
That isn't true, there is very little complexity involved.

> without any gain.
Doing this would allow us to have a single release that is built with java6
but supports both 6 and 7.

> 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.


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