I think, that Markus did some tests. Maybe he can share? :)

> Am 09.09.2024 um 09:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
> 
> Is the performance reason still accurate nowadays?
> Someone tested with recent JVMs?
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 9:30 AM Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Any other thoughts?
>> 
>>> Am 05.09.2024 um 11:08 schrieb Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org>:
>>> 
>>> Yes. It is done for startup performance reasons only. At runtime, there
>> is not a big difference.
>>> Regarding your points.
>>> 
>>> (1) I think, that metatype.org <http://metatype.org/> has expired / is
>> parked at a domain service, so it might not be possible to release SXC
>> under that umbrella (again). We cannot put that under the ASF umbrella
>> because of licensing constraints.
>>> (2) The build looks good (as far as I can remember) and if we have
>> regressions in that area, we will find out with our early adopters in an M3
>> milestone.
>>> (3) I am fine with that but would see that in a next stage ;-)
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the work, Markus. It is really appreciated!
>>> 
>>> Gruß
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>>> Am 03.09.2024 um 16:16 schrieb Markus Jung <ju...@apache.org>:
>>>> 
>>>> AFAIK sticking to SXC is a decision purely made for startup performance
>> reasons, see David's reply in
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/09powc11z4rnzvyzmt4xy5bcbrqwkfkh
>>>> 
>>>> On 03.09.24 13:43, Thomas Andraschko wrote:
>>>>> i thought it in the past that i would be better to get rid of SXC
>>>>> completely but maybe thats a to big task:
>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/0p4m1rw8vmv17l29s1lgclsd9bfrr7s4
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am Di., 3. Sept. 2024 um 13:15 Uhr schrieb Markus Jung <
>> ju...@apache.org>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I had to modify the JAXB models in openejb-jee for the concurrency 3.0
>>>>>> implementation [1] but noticed the changes were not taken into affect.
>>>>>> This is where I found out what openejb-jee-accessors was for.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Long story short, I was not able to get the old SXC maven plugin
>> running
>>>>>> and Richard and I decided to fork SXC and update it to Jakarta XML
>>>>>> Binding 4.0. The fork can be found here [2] and Richard has done a
>>>>>> release on maven central under the groupId
>>>>>> io.github.rzo1.org.metatype.sxc. I integrated this new SXC release in
>> a
>>>>>> PR [3] and would highly appreciate if we can get some eyes from long
>>>>>> time contributors on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think there are 3 topics that require attention:
>>>>>> 1. Do we want to switch to Richards fork? Maybe we could merge with
>> the
>>>>>> original code from David and release that again, though it seems the
>>>>>> metatype.org domain is expired and owned by a parking service. We
>> likely
>>>>>> can't fork it in tomee as the code is not fully under the Apache 2.0
>>>>>> License.
>>>>>> 2. Some tests were failing after I fully regenerated the SXC accessor
>>>>>> classes because the generated code has been modified in some places to
>>>>>> allow unknown XML nodes. I recreated this behavior by adding
>>>>>> @XmlAnyAttribute annotated fields where needed. We should be double
>>>>>> checking that I did not miss anything.
>>>>>> 3. (optional) The accessors are 100% matching the JAXB model now. IMO
>> we
>>>>>> should highly consider to delete these from the repository and treat
>>>>>> them as generated sources. This would remove tens of thousands of
>> lines
>>>>>> of code and force future developers to make adjustments in the JAXB
>>>>>> Model instead of hiding them in generated code. WDYT?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any feedback would be highly appreciated as this is a pretty
>> significant
>>>>>> change. The diff for the PR that regenerates all accessors [3] is 30k+
>>>>>> lines long.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Markus
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/1458
>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/rzo1/sxc
>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/1469
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to