2014-06-07 13:25 GMT+02:00 Rick Curtis <[email protected]>: > > Main issue is testing. > I don't follow what is so hard to test this? > > You'll need to test against several asm versions, cxf needed multiple releases to do it and OpenJPA build is already hurtful enough to not make it worse IMHO.
> > it adds a lot of complexity > That isn't true, there is very little complexity involved. > > It is since you need to redefine a part of asm API to be able to support it properly. ASM API is not stable between majors and it is easily broken (typicaly asm4/5 new boolean interface broke several code). > > without any gain. > Doing this would allow us to have a single release that is built with java6 > but supports both 6 and 7. > > I don't get it, asm5 works with all java versions so it is enough. > > 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. > > > Not sure we have the choice. Serp already doesn't support java 8. It doesn't shout but bytecode will be broken if you really use advanced/new features. > 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* >
