----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Golan" <rgolan@redhat.com> To: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 9:07:47 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
On 08/29/2014 02:52 AM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote:
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
I think those renaming and general refactoring of compat should be a series of bugzilla's we should communicate as entry-level,low-hanging-fruits,you-name-it for new comers to ovirt.
c. Later on we can shift to an "already maintained" package.
I wonder how close we are to moving to java8 where all these dependencies (commonsX, LinqWhatever) could go to the waste bin.
probably a mix of jboss/rhel/gwt.
During one of my lastest patches, I disovered there is also Linq in GWT code. sweet.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs@redhat.com> To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:49:57 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
From: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> Cc: devel@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@redhat.com> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@redhat.com> Cc: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com>, devel@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@redhat.com> To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com>, devel@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@redhat.com> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@redhat.com> > Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim" > <iheim@redhat.com>, devel@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@redhat.com> >> To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com> >> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim" >> <iheim@redhat.com>, devel@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@redhat.com> >>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> >>> Cc: "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org, "Alon >>> Bar-Lev" >>> <alonbl@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@redhat.com> >>>> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com> >>>> Cc: devel@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@redhat.com> >>>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Yevgeny >>>>> Zaspitsky" >>>>> <yzaspits@redhat.com> >>>>> Cc: devel@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@redhat.com> >>>>>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> >>>>>>> Cc: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com>, "Allon Mureinik" >>>>>>> <amureini@redhat.com>, devel@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@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>> To: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Allon >>>>>>>>> Mureinik" >>>>>>>>> <amureini@redhat.com>, devel@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
----- Original Message ----- 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@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel