Re: asm7 preparation

[David Blevins]

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Mark Struberg  wrote:
> 
> Otoh I'm totally fine either ways.

For clarity, though I made the suggestion, I'm fine either way as well.

There might be a few 4.10.x in our future, but it wouldn't be terrible.

I definitely see how a 5x change has the opportunity to make everyone suddenly 
ambitious which usually pushes things out.

I'm good with whatever.


-David



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: asm7 preparation

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Think we are all about xbean 4 ;).

Agree it shouldn't be an issue and more than a snapshot state to have 2 asm
versions in tomee now.

Side note: my personal feeling is that we'll explode xbean and never do a
5.x to have an asm (asm shade + util + proxy base tool?) subproject and
telnet, blueprint etc subprojects. Would simplify the maintenance and
lifecycle...but this is another thread of discussion for later ;).

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 17:48, Mark Struberg  a écrit :

> Not 100% sure we should go xbean-5.x. Otoh I'm totally fine either ways.
> We might end up pushing the major version every half a year with the new
> Java cadence :(
>
> Another thought:
> It might happen that we have both shaded asm6 and 7 for a short period in
> time in TomEE.
> But as soon as xbean-asm7 is done I'll run OpenJPA and OpenWebBeans
> releases with the new xbean-asm7.
> So this period should really only be very short. And possibly we even
> manage to get it down to nada.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 02.10.2018 um 00:34 schrieb David Blevins :
> >
> >> On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> :) as usual with asm, looks ok but breaks several apps ;). But main
> point is: do we want to export as asm6 the real asm7 and fake the runtime
> it will work? If we want a smooth upgrade we can update asm6 module to have
> some of changes but keep asm7 module to ensure we cover it IMHO.
> >
> > We should definitely not introduce ASM 7 code into our asm6 module.
> >
> > Another topic is we've been on ASM 6 for 2 years.  Should we change the
> XBean major version to 5 when we switch to ASM 7?
> >
> > That would give us the option to keep pushing out XBean 4.x releases
> with further ASM 6 updates for those who can't/won't upgrade yet or also
> have stable branches to maintain.
> >
> > If if we don't change the major version and any critical bugs or
> security vulnerabilities hit XBean 4.10, we'd have to do a 4.10.1.  If that
> happened a few times we'd find ourselves with 4.10.2, 4.10.3 and
> effectively maintaining a de facto branch, just after the fact and in a
> very awkward way.
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
>
>

Re: xbean-reflect changes and potential xbean 5?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Thanks David.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 18:23, David Blevins  a
écrit :

> I think what threw me off was seeing XBEAN-309 updated from 4.10 to 4.11.
> I suspect you moved it only because I hadn't bother to close it, which I
> should.
>
> I've updated it to 4.10 and marked it closed.
>
> -David
>
> > On Oct 2, 2018, at 12:27 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
> >
> > No worries, let's tackle this asm7 thing and we can even add other
> features ;)
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 00:01, David Blevins  a
> écrit :
> > Apparently I have to worry about becoming senile.  I did an svn log and
> swore I didn't see the commit in there.  It's definitely there.  I think my
> mind has been warped by working with Git too long.
> >
> > Sorry for the noise and thank for the release, sir!
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > > On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Seems the code is still here - see
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean/blob/trunk/xbean-reflect/src/main/java/org/apache/xbean/propertyeditor/PropertyEditorRegistry.java
> > >
> > > Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 22:04, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> a écrit :
> > > Hmm, thought i just did what was mentionned in this thread which was
> not about dropping any code but ensuring static usage was kept only for
> compatibility and moving to a not leaking impl.
> > >
> > > Do you have a failling test of the missing feature? - feel free to
> push it with @Ignore ;). I can check tomorrow I think.
> > >
> > > We will release soon the 4.11 with asm7 support - we just need to
> finish to decide if there is a blocker to do asm7 package or not (another
> thread on it).
> > >
> > > Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 20:52, David Blevins  a
> écrit :
> > > > On Aug 8, 2018, at 6:53 PM, David Blevins 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to do a 4.x release of this code.
> > >
> > > Hey Romain, is there any reason you pulled this code out of the XBean
> 4.10 release?  Ideally we discuss these things as a community before
> tacking action.
> > >
> > > Would you mind if I did a 4.11 with it included?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: xbean-reflect changes and potential xbean 5?

[David Blevins]

I think what threw me off was seeing XBEAN-309 updated from 4.10 to 4.11.  I 
suspect you moved it only because I hadn't bother to close it, which I should.

I've updated it to 4.10 and marked it closed.

-David

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 12:27 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau  wrote:
> 
> No worries, let's tackle this asm7 thing and we can even add other features ;)
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> 
> 
> Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 00:01, David Blevins  a écrit :
> Apparently I have to worry about becoming senile.  I did an svn log and swore 
> I didn't see the commit in there.  It's definitely there.  I think my mind 
> has been warped by working with Git too long.
> 
> Sorry for the noise and thank for the release, sir!
> 
> 
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> 
> > On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau  
> > wrote:
> >
> > Seems the code is still here - see 
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean/blob/trunk/xbean-reflect/src/main/java/org/apache/xbean/propertyeditor/PropertyEditorRegistry.java
> >
> > Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 22:04, Romain Manni-Bucau  a 
> > écrit :
> > Hmm, thought i just did what was mentionned in this thread which was not 
> > about dropping any code but ensuring static usage was kept only for 
> > compatibility and moving to a not leaking impl.
> >
> > Do you have a failling test of the missing feature? - feel free to push it 
> > with @Ignore ;). I can check tomorrow I think.
> >
> > We will release soon the 4.11 with asm7 support - we just need to finish to 
> > decide if there is a blocker to do asm7 package or not (another thread on 
> > it).
> >
> > Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 20:52, David Blevins  a écrit :
> > > On Aug 8, 2018, at 6:53 PM, David Blevins  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd love to do a 4.x release of this code.
> >
> > Hey Romain, is there any reason you pulled this code out of the XBean 4.10 
> > release?  Ideally we discuss these things as a community before tacking 
> > action.
> >
> > Would you mind if I did a 4.11 with it included?
> >
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: asm7 preparation

[Mark Struberg]

Not 100% sure we should go xbean-5.x. Otoh I'm totally fine either ways.
We might end up pushing the major version every half a year with the new Java 
cadence :(

Another thought:
It might happen that we have both shaded asm6 and 7 for a short period in time 
in TomEE. 
But as soon as xbean-asm7 is done I'll run OpenJPA and OpenWebBeans releases 
with the new xbean-asm7.
So this period should really only be very short. And possibly we even manage to 
get it down to nada.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 02.10.2018 um 00:34 schrieb David Blevins :
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau  wrote:
>> 
>> :) as usual with asm, looks ok but breaks several apps ;). But main point 
>> is: do we want to export as asm6 the real asm7 and fake the runtime it will 
>> work? If we want a smooth upgrade we can update asm6 module to have some of 
>> changes but keep asm7 module to ensure we cover it IMHO.
> 
> We should definitely not introduce ASM 7 code into our asm6 module.
> 
> Another topic is we've been on ASM 6 for 2 years.  Should we change the XBean 
> major version to 5 when we switch to ASM 7?
> 
> That would give us the option to keep pushing out XBean 4.x releases with 
> further ASM 6 updates for those who can't/won't upgrade yet or also have 
> stable branches to maintain.
> 
> If if we don't change the major version and any critical bugs or security 
> vulnerabilities hit XBean 4.10, we'd have to do a 4.10.1.  If that happened a 
> few times we'd find ourselves with 4.10.2, 4.10.3 and effectively maintaining 
> a de facto branch, just after the fact and in a very awkward way.
> 
> 
> -David
> 

Re: asm7 preparation

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Trying to go back to action: any objection to release master as it (ie with
asm7 module and a dropped asm6 module)? Sounds like the best compromise we
can get - and the same as commons.

Side note: if we need we can create a maintenance branch for asm6 but from
experience we always moved forward - cause java support way ;) - and never
needed to go back so sounds good enough to move forward to keep trunk as it.

If no objection I will try to launch it hopefully tomorrow or later this
week.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 09:21, Romain Manni-Bucau  a
écrit :

>
>
>
>
> Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 00:34, David Blevins  a
> écrit :
>
>> > On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > :) as usual with asm, looks ok but breaks several apps ;). But main
>> point is: do we want to export as asm6 the real asm7 and fake the runtime
>> it will work? If we want a smooth upgrade we can update asm6 module to have
>> some of changes but keep asm7 module to ensure we cover it IMHO.
>>
>> We should definitely not introduce ASM 7 code into our asm6 module.
>>
>> Another topic is we've been on ASM 6 for 2 years.  Should we change the
>> XBean major version to 5 when we switch to ASM 7?
>>
>
> Since some years I really think we should explode xbean to be able to have
> this real versioning otherwise we are always between "this part needs a new
> major but not this one for consistency".
>
>
>>
>> That would give us the option to keep pushing out XBean 4.x releases with
>> further ASM 6 updates for those who can't/won't upgrade yet or also have
>> stable branches to maintain.
>>
>
> Strictly speaking we can have asm[3-7] in the same source tree so not sure
> it helps to move in one direction or the other.
>
>
>>
>> If if we don't change the major version and any critical bugs or security
>> vulnerabilities hit XBean 4.10, we'd have to do a 4.10.1.  If that happened
>> a few times we'd find ourselves with 4.10.2, 4.10.3 and effectively
>> maintaining a de facto branch, just after the fact and in a very awkward
>> way.
>>
>
> I actually like that for multiple reasons:
>
> 1. upgrading is a very doable work for all projects which would require
> such an upgrade so not a blocker
> 2. we can always lazily create a maintenance branch from a tag (vs eagerly
> which is generally useless) and when done it does not get more love than
> the CVE fix if it exists
>
> At the end it is the less costly solution IMHO.
>
>
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>

Re: xbean-reflect changes and potential xbean 5?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

No worries, let's tackle this asm7 thing and we can even add other features
;)

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 00:01, David Blevins  a
écrit :

> Apparently I have to worry about becoming senile.  I did an svn log and
> swore I didn't see the commit in there.  It's definitely there.  I think my
> mind has been warped by working with Git too long.
>
> Sorry for the noise and thank for the release, sir!
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
> >
> > Seems the code is still here - see
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean/blob/trunk/xbean-reflect/src/main/java/org/apache/xbean/propertyeditor/PropertyEditorRegistry.java
> >
> > Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 22:04, Romain Manni-Bucau  a
> écrit :
> > Hmm, thought i just did what was mentionned in this thread which was not
> about dropping any code but ensuring static usage was kept only for
> compatibility and moving to a not leaking impl.
> >
> > Do you have a failling test of the missing feature? - feel free to push
> it with @Ignore ;). I can check tomorrow I think.
> >
> > We will release soon the 4.11 with asm7 support - we just need to finish
> to decide if there is a blocker to do asm7 package or not (another thread
> on it).
> >
> > Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 20:52, David Blevins  a
> écrit :
> > > On Aug 8, 2018, at 6:53 PM, David Blevins 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd love to do a 4.x release of this code.
> >
> > Hey Romain, is there any reason you pulled this code out of the XBean
> 4.10 release?  Ideally we discuss these things as a community before
> tacking action.
> >
> > Would you mind if I did a 4.11 with it included?
> >
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
>
>

Re: asm7 preparation

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 00:34, David Blevins  a
écrit :

> > On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
> >
> > :) as usual with asm, looks ok but breaks several apps ;). But main
> point is: do we want to export as asm6 the real asm7 and fake the runtime
> it will work? If we want a smooth upgrade we can update asm6 module to have
> some of changes but keep asm7 module to ensure we cover it IMHO.
>
> We should definitely not introduce ASM 7 code into our asm6 module.
>
> Another topic is we've been on ASM 6 for 2 years.  Should we change the
> XBean major version to 5 when we switch to ASM 7?
>

Since some years I really think we should explode xbean to be able to have
this real versioning otherwise we are always between "this part needs a new
major but not this one for consistency".


>
> That would give us the option to keep pushing out XBean 4.x releases with
> further ASM 6 updates for those who can't/won't upgrade yet or also have
> stable branches to maintain.
>

Strictly speaking we can have asm[3-7] in the same source tree so not sure
it helps to move in one direction or the other.


>
> If if we don't change the major version and any critical bugs or security
> vulnerabilities hit XBean 4.10, we'd have to do a 4.10.1.  If that happened
> a few times we'd find ourselves with 4.10.2, 4.10.3 and effectively
> maintaining a de facto branch, just after the fact and in a very awkward
> way.
>

I actually like that for multiple reasons:

1. upgrading is a very doable work for all projects which would require
such an upgrade so not a blocker
2. we can always lazily create a maintenance branch from a tag (vs eagerly
which is generally useless) and when done it does not get more love than
the CVE fix if it exists

At the end it is the less costly solution IMHO.


>
>
> -David
>
>