----- Original Message -----
From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> To: "Roy Golan" <rgolan@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 8:15:17 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
----- 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.
GWT client code org.ovirt.engine.ui.uicommonweb.Linq contains far more stuff than org.ovirt.engine.core.utils.linq.LinqUtils, including entity comparators and filter/finder methods. Perhaps these should be moved out of uicommonweb's Linq. GWT 2.6 supports Java 7. We already have an upgrade patch [1] for this. [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/32135/ GWT 3 (planned for late 2014 / early 2015) will likely support Java 8.
----- 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
----- Original Message ----- 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@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
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel