--lCAWRPmW1mITcIfM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/29, Martin Betak wrote:
From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs@redhat.com> To: "Martin Betak" <mbetak@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com>, "Alexander Wels= " <awels@redhat.com>, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com>, "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek@redhat.com>, "Lior Ver= nia" <lvernia@redhat.com>, "Daniel Erez" <derez@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:38:04 PM Subject: Re: Moving forward our frontend stack =20 Hey Martin! =20 I've just reviewed your patch, looks good overall. =20 Here are my thoughts: =20 * Jenkins CI fails on patch due to missing dependencies, we need to provide following new dependencies in order to proceed with the upgrade: =20 org.aspectj:aspectjweaver:1.8.2 org.aspectj:aspectjrt:1.8.2 com.google.gwt:gwt-user:2.6.1 com.google.gwt:gwt-dev:2.6.1 com.google.gwt:gwt-servlet:2.6.1 com.google.gwt:2.6.1 org.codehaus.mojo:gwt-maven-plugin:2.6.1 com.gwtplatform:gwtp-processors:1.3.1 com.gwtplatform:gwtp-mvp-client:1.3.1 com.google.gwt.inject:gin:2.1.2 =20 Who will take charge of that? =20 I already spoke to David Caro about the jenkins failure of=20
----- Original Message ----- patch http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/32135/. It seems the files for appropriate versions are there but the files are corrupted. =20 Let us hope this can be resolved easier than Node.js :-)
=20 Best regards, =20 Martin =20
=20 * patch itself looks quite harmless (not too risky) =20 * consolidating Java source & target version across frontend and backend is nice! =20 -> this means we could use Java 7 features also on the frontend (Java/GWT) side =20 * TODO-GWT tags [1] proved to be helpful [2] =20 -> reminder to all UI maintainers to use TODO-GWT tags whenever we have some GWT(P) workaround, so that the future upgrade will be safer w.r.t. existing code =20 [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/devel@ovirt.org/msg00761.html [2] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/32135/1/frontend/webadmin/modules/webadmin/= src/main/java/org/ovirt/engine/ui/webadmin/section/main/view/SearchPanelVie= w.java =20 Regards, Vojtech =20 PS: I went through GWT-Platform release notes, found an interesting new feature in recent GWTP release, worth investigating: =20 https://github.com/ArcBees/GWTP/wiki/Release-Notes #346 : Map more than one name token to presenter =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Betak" <mbetak@redhat.com> To: devel@ovirt.org Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs@redhat.com>, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat= =2Ecom>, "Alexander Wels" <awels@redhat.com>, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com>, "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek@redhat.com>, "Lior Vernia" <lvernia@redhat.com>, "Daniel Erez" <derez@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:11:10 PM Subject: Moving forward our frontend stack =20 Hello oVirt developers! =20 I have prepared patch [1] that upgrades our frontend stack to use GWT version 2.6.1 (from previous 2.5.1). =20 This patch also updates GIN to version 2.1.2 and GWT-P to 1.3.1 =20 Since GWT 2.6 features support for Java 7 it was possible to increment language levels of all projects stuck at Java 6 (common, compat, searchbackend and entire of frontend). =20 To facilitate emitting bytecode compatible with Java 7 also upgrade of AspectJ was necessary. This patch upgrades it to AspectJ 1.8 that features even s= upport for Java 8 which will save effort when upgrading to GWT 2.7/3.0 in the fu= ture. =20 Most of the changes in the patch are due to upgrade of GWT-P - i.e. changing packages of TokenFormatter and PlaceRequest. =20 Overall this patch is *MUCH* simpler than the previous http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/16739/ which facilitated upgrade from 2.3 to 2.5.1, and hopefully much less = risky. =20 I have tested draft-compile, debug-mode and also tried to use the res=
It seems that the pom on jboss repository has a checksum that does not match the ones there. http://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public-jboss/com/gwtplat= form/gwtp/1.3.1/ If you get the gwtp-1.3.1.pom file, you get the hashed: MD5: 9acbb4e5088825d31e2c8307ae679243 SHA1: eb6e92c012926fb265cf4f359c3d5adca8c5c0f9 While the ones there are: MD5: c33a1cd1ffa88aa4cec42e03364b0e0c SHA1: ca6c0155356765fc23f0a557373193f013adfd6c Any of you have any contact with the guys that maintain that repo (or know about who can know about?) I seem to be unable to find any contant in the repo itself... Anyhow, I've disabled the checksum checking and just pass through, so it should not complain about unable to download it (it might fail due to the checksum, it should at least xd). ulting
application manually for some time. So far everything worked (surprisingly well!)= and I have not detected any defects. Of course I invite anyone to test this patch on= his own since it is and upgrade of our core infrastructure. =20 That having said I think is comparatively simple and the benefits out= weigh the risks if this upgrade is done at the beginning of ovirt-3.6 development cyc= le. =20 Reviews, comments and testing are very welcome :-) =20 Best regards, =20 Martin =20 [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/32135/ =20 =20
--=20 David Caro Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 --lCAWRPmW1mITcIfM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAEbFAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDU4YH/isNEML5u8LAkxH56INs4STV jYzan8beYhIq9cxBLIy7ViGCKmTM7W7JqL7SB11a8sNxVimPDD0RNrmT0StPlK/P +s7NFw0oUh7dFvJOv7prmtr7dBGI7tMPHdCyhzRQHy4mi7R6aSrZrSXst57v04Y4 7wH5QzEcSFeaXIHvx0krbItw30Gps2micEG4Szqvqll7a4UyYL15T6ouxv099liB 78J14dViAYtdyEUqeY+PnJ+/DxgiyBXGT6JlHrJKelP9j9w4Vu311vfBzhc8JlGI 9Kbh3WwSELml9OruiiIX0eWVQRzakWHBqSf1d7gfeRgnqRCcpCG44b6Wvyrifkg= =b8n4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lCAWRPmW1mITcIfM--