Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 à 14:26, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Introducing our own API doesn't make much sense to me. > Agree cause it is not just an xbean internal > The challenges (support for new unknown Java versions) would be exactly > the same as ASM has. > It wouldn't if we would be in asm scope cause we would use a very limited set of asm features. We are kind in a situation where we use 10% of the features and expose 100% by construction :(. > So we would in the end also be forced to break the API :( > Remember that the main reason we created the whole shading for is to allow > to upgrade parts of the stack without interfering with a.) some custom apps > and b.) each other. > Agree. > > Right now you can just swap out openjpa in TomEE for example. All you need > to do is to _potentially_ also add another xbean-asm version. > And that is good that way imo. > Ok so you confirm keeping the pattern we use (ie going with asm7) is ok for you? FYI the diff: https://gitlab.ow2.org/asm/asm/compare/ASM_6_2_1...ASM_7_0_BETA But some impl changes are not just fixes and even if signatures don't always change I think it is sane to not put a v7 in an asm6 package/module - same as for java 8 upgrade where the verifier was stricter. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 01.10.2018 um 14:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > >: > > > > > > > > Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 à 12:39, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit : > > We should analyse if ASM7 is a drop-in replacement and can be used in a > backward compatible way. > > > > Didn't review everything but there are some changes in the impl which > are not compatible and why we must upgrade even if asm 6.2.1 had some good > java 11 support. > > > > If so, then we could keep the shaded o.a.g.asm6 package and just > document it. > > > > I thought about it but it sounds so dangerous and hard to control on the > long run than upgrading all our stack sounds worth it for me. > > > > If ASM7 removed some old methods, then we really should also shade to a > private asm7 package. > > > > This lead to the option to not expose ASM at all and create our own API > but it breaks the reason why all our stack uses this shade: have a fully > featured ASM usable by proxying impl of the full stack > > and share it with the scanner. This is why I thought we can't really > fake the package without serious risk, we expose a too big coverage now > (cxf, openjpa, xbean, big data engines, user apps, ...). > > > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > Am 30.09.2018 um 19:44 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]>: > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > Asm 7 beta was released yesterday, I'd like to try to release it ASAP. > > > I see 1 main point to discuss before releasing: do we keep the version > in the package and module name? For now it is required cause we cant > guarantee anything about asm compatibility. > > > > > > Options I see are: > > > 1. drop asm and use bcel (which is asf) > > > 2. drop asm and reimplement bytecode parsing for our need (but will > create issue in most of our stack for proxy creation IMHO) > > > 3. keep it like that > > > 4. use an "asm.*" package crossing fingers > > > > > > I'd love 4 but I fear it can create issue quickly when I see what java > is becoming so, personally, i think 3 is safe but since we are at "that" > moment I'd like to get your feedback. > > > > > > Side note: if I get no other vote than 3 before tuesday, i'll try to > launch the release on tuesday with asm7 module and package to let us get it > out. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > >
