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 c. Later on we can shift to an "already maintained" package. ----- 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
----- Original Message -----
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 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