9:07 a.m.
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.
----- 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
>>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel