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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > >
