> 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> 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" <[email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > 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 <[email protected]>: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 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 < > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 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 <[email protected]>: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 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 < > >> > > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 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 < > [email protected] > >> >: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 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 < > >> > > > > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > > > > 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 < > >> > > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > >> > > > > > > > > > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> 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*
