Hi, Rick has created a JIRA and posted a proposed patch for this flexible ASM integration: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2514
I'd like to shift this ASM integration discussion over to that JIRA. If the direction of that JIRA and the patch is acceptable, then we might be able to skip this extra "2.4.0" release since ASM 5 could be supported with both the 2.2.x and 2.3.x service streams. We could put trunk back to supporting Java 7 for future development. Kevin On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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* > > >
