well tomee don't really care but here we depend on 1) xbean (should be doable) 2) cxf
that's why i proposed to do next release with xbean 3 and then try to upgrade all libs wdyt? isnt it more pragmatic for short term releases (apache con would be fantastic)? *Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* 2012/10/27 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > If ASM4 is providing functionality for java7 which the older version > cannot provide then I see no reason to not work towards using ASM4 in TomEE > as well. This should not be a blocker for OpenJPA but more some a point > which we have to be aware of and need to handle some way. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 2:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our post-enhancement > processing > > > > Yep but it is not as easy as you say since thats internals and both will > > not be tested IMO > > Le 27 oct. 2012 01:57, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> > > a écrit : > > > >> Fork is not the right word. Patch maybe, but even that can easily be > >> avoided. > >> > >> If we had abstraction so there wasn't a hard dependency on > > "ASM" we could > >> supply our own shaded version, that would be more than enough. > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > If so tomee will fork openjpa to use xbean asm shade... > >> > > >> > Tomee cares about size > >> > Le 26 oct. 2012 00:23, "Kevin Sutter" > > <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> > > >> >> Hi Mark, > >> >> Yes, Romain raised this point to me on a separate thread. From > > what I > >> can > >> >> tell TomEE is using OpenJPA 2.2.0. Since your changes for > > openjpa-2171 > >> >> only went into trunk, I'm wondering where the dependency is > > being > >> managed. > >> >> So, yes, we do need some input from the TomEE team as to whether > > this > >> type > >> >> of change would affect them. > >> >> > >> >> Another alternative is to provide a shaded jar that embeds and > > hides the > >> >> ASM deliverable within the OpenJPA jar. Yes, that jar would grow > >> slightly > >> >> (46K), but then nobody would be wiser as to what version of ASM is > > being > >> >> used. > >> >> > >> >> Anyway, let's keep the conversation going... Thanks! > >> >> > >> >> Kevin > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Mark Struberg > > <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hi Kevin! > >> >>> > >> >>> We must also make sure to not hit a major incompat with tomee > > and other > >> >>> systems. > >> >>> I'll ping David and Romain so they can test this a bit. > >> >>> > >> >>> LieGrue, > >> >>> strub > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >>>> From: Kevin Sutter <[email protected]> > >> >>>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] > >> >>>> Cc: > >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:15 PM > >> >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Upgrade to use ASM 4 for our > > post-enhancement > >> >>> processing > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi, > >> >>>> Some of you may have noticed a recent JIRA I opened up: > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2283 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I created this for upgrading our current usage of ASM 3.2 > > to ASM 4.0. > >> >>>> OpenJPA uses ASM for some post-enhancement processing to > > clean up the > >> >>> stack > >> >>>> map tables that are required for Java 7 validation. Since > > ASM 4 has > >> >> more > >> >>>> complete support for Java 7, I thought it would be an > > easy, > >> >>>> preventative-care type of move. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> As my JIRA indicates, I have run into a couple of hiccups > > with this > >> >> move > >> >>>> that I am still working through. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> But, in general, does anybody have a concern with this > > upgrade? I'm > >> >> only > >> >>>> looking to do trunk at the moment. But, if we continue to > > hit Java 7 > >> >>>> validation errors in 2.2.x, then I might consider moving > > it back to > >> >> 2.2.x > >> >>>> as well. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thanks for any input, > >> >>>> Kevin > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> > > >
