[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Richard Zowalla resolved OPENJPA-2514.
--------------------------------------
    Resolution: Won't Fix

Closing as obsolete: The enhancer uses the shaded xbean-asm9 only since 
OPENJPA-2911.

> ASM dependency revisited
> ------------------------
>
>                 Key: OPENJPA-2514
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2514
>             Project: OpenJPA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: kernel
>    Affects Versions: 2.2.2, 2.3.0, 2.4.0
>            Reporter: Richard G. Curtis
>            Assignee: Richard G. Curtis
>            Priority: Major
>
> OPENJPA-2171 introduced a dependency on xbean-asm-4 and with this JIRA I'd 
> like to revisit that issue.
> On the mailing list the TomEE folks have pointed that they need a java 6 
> release with xbean asm5(in support of runtime java8) and Kevin has even 
> reverted a number of changes to trunk to rollback some of the java7(compile) 
> support changes. I put together a patch that is similar to Romain's patch 
> from OPENJPA-2171 that will selectively load whichever ASM library is 
> available for a given environment. The attached patch will also upgrade the 
> packaged asm dependency in openjpa-all to xbean-asm-5, but that could be 
> changed depending on the environment. 
> While I understand, and appreciate the need to insulate OpenJPA from 
> ASM(breaking) changes, I don't like the fact that to use OpenJPA a user is 
> also required to use a special version of ASM. There are scenarios where a 
> user might already have their own 'blessed' version of ASM in use, and they 
> don't want to have yet another copy. Allowing for selecting loading of a 
> given ASM library should be able to satisfy both use cases.
> If this seems like a reasonable way forward, I could commit this change to 
> trunk and 2.3.x. This would mean that the TomEE folks could cut another 
> release from the 2.3.x branch, rather than creating yet another branch for 
> limited benefit. 
> Thoughts, comments?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v10.3.26#10030026)

Reply via email to