Jarek, I got spoiled by having the integration tests automatically run on 2.2.
I had hoped that the tests were broken before I started - but unfortunately, it really was me that broke them. I will find and fix the problem. Thanks for alerting me to it. Jay Jarek Gawor wrote: > Jay, > > Please run all tests including the integration tests before > committing. Looks like deployment of some apps is failing after the > recent changes, for example see: > http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/2.0/20090204/logs-0200-tomcat/test.log > > Jarek > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jay D. McHugh <[email protected]> wrote: >> All of the 2.0.3 build issues are fixed. >> >> I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know what >> happens. >> >> If it will build, then I might take a look to see whether I can figure >> out what changes are necessary for OpenEJB 3.0.1 to use XBeans 3.5 too. >> >> Jay >> >> Jay D. McHugh wrote: >>> The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a >>> higher version of XBeans. >>> >>> OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed: >>> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept >>> >>> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that >>> have been removed: >>> LinkResolver >>> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver >>> >>> Jay >>> >>> Joe Bohn wrote: >>>> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging. >>>> >>>> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I >>>> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this >>>> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users. >>>> >>>> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually >>>> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However, >>>> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the >>>> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up >>>> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect >>>> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was >>>> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best >>>> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions >>>> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions >>>> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were >>>> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> Jay D. McHugh wrote: >>>>> Hey everyone, >>>>> >>>>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think >>>>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you >>>>> use a version greater than 3.4.1. >>>>> >>>>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used >>>>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors. >>>>> >>>>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of >>>>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly. >>>>> >>>>> My feeling is that it won't though. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put >>>>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds >>>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds). >>>>> >>>>> Jay >>>>> >>>>> Joe Bohn wrote: >>>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I >>>>>> got it wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1 >>>>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can >>>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references >>>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Joe >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Donald Woods wrote: >>>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x. >>>>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Donald >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote: >>>>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have >>>>>>>> my vote for release manager! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references >>>>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating >>>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In >>>>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect) >>>>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to >>>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new >>>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use >>>>>>>> xBean 3.5. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of >>>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users. >>>>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release >>>>>>>>> manager for this release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things >>>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_ >>>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> update that wiki page. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Jarek >>>>>>>>>
