currently tomee depends on a shade of openjpa 2.2.0 where we remove asm dependency for xbean asm
but it would be a pain to not be able to upgrade because of it no? (moreover we should avoid shade between ASF projects) *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* 2012/10/29 Kevin Sutter <[email protected]> > Hi, > Does TomEE have a dependency on specific version(s) of OpenJPA? Currently, > the patch for looking for the xbean and spring shaded versions of ASM is > only in OpenJPA Trunk. Is TomEE really dependent on OpenJPA Trunk? I > would have assumed a more stable release would have been selected. > > I'm trying to determine the difference between your "next release" and the > "short term release" you are referencing. That is, what release(s) would > work for this ASM 4 upgrade as it relates to TomEE? (BTW, we are doing a > similar exercise with WebSphere's usage to determine the proper timeframe > for this upgrade.) > > Thanks, > Kevin > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 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 > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
