----- 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
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