7:52 p.m.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
I would like to sum things up (as I understood from this thread) -
a. We will defer the move to commons collections4.
b. We should introduce some class renaming, not have LinqXXX
c. Later on we can shift to an "already maintained" package.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com>
To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>, devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:49:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:52:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>, "Itamar
Heim"
> > <iheim(a)redhat.com>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 9:51:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>, "Itamar
Heim"
> > > <iheim(a)redhat.com>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:36:31 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>,
"Itamar Heim"
> > > > <iheim(a)redhat.com>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:33:09 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>,
"Itamar Heim"
> > > > > <iheim(a)redhat.com>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:20:19 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Greg Sheremeta"
<gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>,
devel(a)ovirt.org, "Alon
> > > > > > Bar-Lev"
> > > > > > <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 8:39:54 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about
LinqUtils
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Yair Zaslavsky"
<yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:39:31 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about
LinqUtils
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Itamar Heim"
<iheim(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "Yair Zaslavsky"
<yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>, "Yevgeny
> > > > > > > > Zaspitsky"
> > > > > > > > <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:25:52 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts
about LinqUtils
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 08/21/2014 09:55 AM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > >> From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky"
<yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > >> To: "Yair Zaslavsky"
<yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > >> Cc: "Moti Asayag"
<masayag(a)redhat.com>, "Allon Mureinik"
> > > > > > > > >> <amureini(a)redhat.com>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:35:33
PM
> > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE]
thoughts about
> > > > > > > > >> LinqUtils
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On 21/08/14 12:08, Yair Zaslavsky
wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > >>>> From: "Yevgeny
Zaspitsky" <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>> To: "Moti Asayag"
<masayag(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky"
<yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>, "Allon
> > > > > > > > >>>> Mureinik"
> > > > > > > > >>>> <amureini(a)redhat.com>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014
11:26:40 AM
> > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel]
[ENGINE] thoughts about
> > > > > > > > >>>> LinqUtils
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> It seems like we can try moving
to common-collections4.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Yum
> > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > >>>> my
> > > > > > > > >>>> Fedora20
> > > > > > > > >>>> computer finds
apache-commons-collections4 package.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Fortunately
> > > > > > > > >>>> somebody
> > > > > > > > >>>> packed the jar into for a rpm
for us. :-)
> > > > > > > > >>> What about RHEL 6.5? Can you please
run a quick check?
> > > > > > > > >> Unfortunately my happiness was too
hasty. Only Fedora
> > > > > > > > >> people
> > > > > > > > >> care
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> in the forward of the technology... The
RHEL ones do not
> > > > > > > > >> care
> > > > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > > > >> that...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is what I remembered. When you
responded to the email
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > time , I had a strong deja vu that you tried
addressing
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > yourself in the past (commons-collectios4) -
due to
> > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > reason.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > is there a specific conflict or problem (or a
huge chain of
> > > > > > > > dependencies)
> > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To me it seems the answer to both is no -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the requirement list -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > java >= 1.5
> > > > > > > jpackage-utils
> > > > > > > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> > > > > > > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
> > > > > > > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> > > > > > > rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Probably a matter of packaging?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IIRC, Alon was the one who replied, and the issue was that
Jboss
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > old version (and we don't have classpath isolation, I
guess)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Greg
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We would like to avoid maintaining and package components that
are
> > > > > not
> > > > > provider either by el6 or jboss distribution.
> > > > >
> > > > > But based on other threads, it seems that I am the only one who
> > > > > remained
> > > > > trying to push compliance to the old ways, people feel that can
> > > > > maintain
> > > > > anything anywhere with no effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Alon
> >
> > Alon, I disagree with your comment (about the "you're the only
one" part
> > :)
> > )
>
> +1
>
> We have three (four if you include PatternFly) ongoing threads about
> dependency
> issues at the moment, and I hope we all realize that Alon is trying to do
> what's best for our project. I certainly empathize with him. He has a tough
> role, and there are a lot of us young'uns who want 'shiny new things'
> brought
> into the project. I certainly don't have the experience to know about all
> the
> long term costs of bringing in dependencies into an enterprise project like
> this
> -- but I'm learning :)
I don't think that motivation to introduce new dependencies is driven by
desire to have "shiny new things" (we're not kids, right?) - I think that
motivation is driven by actual needs, backed by potential value that might
be broght in. For example, better/easier code due to newer version of
library.
I agree that we should avoid maintaining packages ourselves as much as we
can,
I think that everyone's in agreement with Alon on that.
>
> > As I wrote - I had a strong deja-vu about that the issue was already
> > brought
> > up.
> > Now that you reminded , I don't think you're the only person who feels
> > this
> > way.
> > I would also like to understand more what it means before jumping to
> > conclusions and upgrading to collections4.
> > At past I had some issues with another commons project
> > (commons-configuration) that had different versions upstream and
> > downstream.
>
> I think collections4 is a nonstarter because it's not packaged for EL,
> IIUC.
>
> > I am sure the changes include not just
> > "move to generics" and should carefully be considered.
> >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If I may clarify, there would be at least two stipulations for
> > > > introducing
> > > > collections4.
> > > >
> > > > 1. someone else packages it and maintains it, available in Fedora
and
> > > > EL,
> > > > long term. Quality package.
> > >
> > > this is what missing, us maintaining a new package just to have more
> > > beautiful code is something that can be deferred for now.
> > >
> > > > 2. JBoss has proper classloader isolation so that, even though JBoss
> > > > uses
> > > > collections3, a webapp can use collections4.
> > >
> > > should not be a problem to use both.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know the answer to either question :)
> > > >
> > > > Seems like minimal gain to me, though.
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>