+1
Java 5 for 1.0.x and 1.3.x
Java 6 for 2.x
I think this could better for OpenJPA adoption.
Concerning my own usage, I'm no more using Java 5 ... so I would be
pleased with everything Java 6.
On Aug 6, 2009, at 16:11 , Donald Woods wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Database users are notorious for wanting stability, even if it
means running back-level releases. Somehow they manage to coerce
vendors into supporting them on their running systems.
To get an accurate idea of our users' requirements, perhaps we need
to include users@ in this discussion. Done. See" To:" line above.
But it's also clear that OpenJPA 2.0 will require Java 6. So I have
no issues with making the switch for 2.0.
Agree. I'd like us to require Java SE 6 for build and runtime.
But is it a problem staying with Java 5 for the 1.x lines?
No, I'd expect us to stay with the Java SE 5 binary compatible
requirement for 1.0.x - 1.3.x, but allow 1.2.x and 1.3.x to be
tested and used on Java SE 6.
Craig
On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
I agree that we need to do something. Running with our current
module setup
requires additional configuration to ensure that everything
compiles cleanly
[1]. Right now, I have to change openjpa-jdbc, openjpa-
persistence, and
openjpa-persistence-jdbc to Java 6 in order to get a clean compile
within
Eclipse. This is due to the JDBC 4 requirements and the annotation
processor changes. I'm okay with only doing the proposed compiler
update
change for these three modules to start with. As it stands right
now, it
looks and feels clumsy...
Kevin
[1] http://openjpa.apache.org/building.html
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Michael Dick <[email protected]
>wrote:
Resurrecting this thread.
We're nearing the EOL for the non business version of Java SE 5.0
(business
edition will be available for quite a while - unless the new
management
changes the plan) [1] .
When 5.0 goes out of service I'd propose upgrading OpenJPA to
require JDK
6.0 to compile. The compiled bytecode can be set to 1.5 if that's a
concern.
I'd prefer to have all the modules use jdk 6 to avoid some of the
headaches
we had in OpenJPA 1.0.x with supporting 1.4 but we can restrict
it to only
the ones that need it (persistence, persistence-jdbc) if that's
more
amenable.
In addition we can set up a new integration module which runs a
subset of
tests with Java 5. It will be optional (since Java 5 won't be
readily
available in 3 months), but at least we'd have some barometer for
whether
OpenJPA works in that environment. We'll have to do some classpath
swizzling
(like we did for 1.4 in the 1.0.x stream) but it *should* be
possible.
Thoughts, objections, stuff I've missed?
[1] http://java.sun.com/products/archive/eol.policy.html
-mike
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Michael Dick <[email protected]
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Pinaki Poddar
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Craig,
This also meets my needs for a stable platform to run a new
personality without the new Java 6 dependencies.
The current update in trunk runs a configuration that builds
OpenJPA
libraries with JDK6 compiler. But other configuration compiles
and runs
our
test corpus with JDK5. I do not think we have a configuration
that
compiles
OpenJPA with JDK6, compiles test cases with JDK5 and runs test
cases
with
JDK5. May be we should create one. Such configuration will
simulate the
target JDK5 user environment with JDK6-compiled OpenJPA where
the test
case
will play the equivalent role of user application.
(Mike/Jeremy, are you tuned to this channel?)
This is easier said than done. Depending on how strict one wants
to be.
If
we rely on the compiler settings (source=1.5, target=1.5) when
we compile
the testcases then at worst we'd have to add a separate maven
module for
JDK5 testcases.
As we've seen in the past with JDK 1.4 this won't necessarily
suffice. We
may need to do some additional tweaking to put the 1.5 class
libraries on
the classpath, or (even more strict) we may need to rebuild with
maven's
JAVA_HOME set differently.
I'd be fine with the first approach as part of a normal build
(provided
it
doesn't double execution time). Either of the later two would
need to be
optional (like we did with jdk 1.4).
mission statement for OpenJPA
"to the implementation of object persistence, including, but not
limited to, Java Persistence API, for distribution at no
charge to the
public;"
I fully agree and support this view. Compliance to a spec is a
necessary
but not sufficient condition for sustainable interest in a
project of
OpenJPA's scope and breadth. Also one of the strongest feature of
OpenJPA is
its 'agnostic architecture' to promote the above charter.
As a group we will benefit if we keep the charter in mind and
consider
possibilities to augment OpenJPA functionality that are beyond a
standard
specification.
I agree that the agnostic architecture is a strength of OpenJPA
and one
that we can leverage to promote additional solutions in the ORM
space.
That
said we are a JPA provider first and foremost and there are
limits to the
contortions that the "core" OpenJPA engine should make to
support other
persistence frameworks. Especially those that have not been
contributed
to
Apache.
To put it another way, our default behavior should be as JPA-
like as
possible with the option for other frameworks to change the
configuration
to
suit their needs.
<snip>
3. If the above appears to be a worthwhile target scenario to
support, then the dynamic class construction approach perhaps
can
prove useful than hand-coding JDBC 4 dependency.
4. We take a decision regarding these aspects by mid-April and
announce it to be effective from, say, mid-June. I am not keen
on
exact duration of the prior notice but 2 months looked to be
reasonable.
Fair enough. My concern lies mainly with the dynamic class
construction
and
the impact on performance. Introducing additional code path in
order to
support a backleveled JDK seems wrong to me. Maybe I'm too
anxious to be
on
the bleeding edge.
-mike
<more message history snipped>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
