On Jun 4, 2007, at 6:39 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
I'm allergic to re-namespacing... why do you think that we should
do so?
Avoiding collisions. The majority case is that people don't care
about the extra 327k but they care a lot about not hitting conflicts
with libraries. Dug Lea's libraries are not a great example of this,
but Hibernate *is* a good example -- it relies on EHCache by default,
going from 3.0 to 3.1 to 3.2 is a major non-backwards compatible
change, and you cannot use EHCache 1.2 with 3.0, so you are trapped
unable to upgrade dependencies. Weblogic and ANTLR (a couple versions
back) is another great example.
Basically, if you are a library (which OpenJPA is) you want to
minimize the degree to which you place constraints on the runtime
environment of your users. I can easily imagine someone using a home-
rolled build of the concurrent backport which was subtly
incompatible. Yes, your user could renamespace then, but it is better
if they *never have the issue*
-Brian
-Patrick
On 6/4/07, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would suggest using backports and repackaging -- though I have
trouble imaging the interfaces on backports changing. I, personally,
am of the opinion that if at all possible, small dependencies should
be re-namespaced and bundled.
-Brian
On Jun 4, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the process of doing some concurrency-related work on
OpenJPA, I've
> run across the need for a ReentrantReadWriteLock, akin to what
is in
> Java 5's java.util.concurrent package, Emory University's
> edu.emory.mathcs.backport package, and Doug Lea's EDU.oswego.cs.dl
> package.
>
> Currently, OpenJPA has repackaged copies of some of the code from
> EDU.oswego.cs.dl, but not everything. I'd like to get rid of the
> repackaged copies, and move to the versions in
> edu.emory.mathcs.backport. According to Doug Lea's website, the
> backport classes are preferable to the EDU.oswego.cs.dl classes at
> this point.
>
> This change is independent of future changes to allow for
pluggability
> of the concurrent implementation, and only impacts those classes
that
> we are already directly repackaging.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Patrick
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
