In fact, for both backend and frontend, Maven effective POM contains: <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> <configuration> <source>1.6</source> <target>1.6</target> </configuration> Therefore, according to Maven POM files, oVirt should be build-able using Java 6, but it's not. (?)

The problem is in backend/manager/modules/bll: StorageDomainCommandBase class uses new Java 7 Long.compare() static method. I think we should decide if we want to be compliant with Java 7, or submit a patch that uses Java 6 API (Long.compareTo instance method). Vojtech ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:43:34 PM Subject: java 1.6 compatibility no more? Hi, It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine is no longer building on java 1.6. Is this intentional? Laszlo _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

Hi, It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine is no longer building on java 1.6. Is this intentional? Laszlo _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. Why not enjoy the bug fixes?

On 07/18/2012 06:33 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: > In fact, for both backend and frontend, Maven effective POM contains: > > <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> > <configuration> > <source>1.6</source> > <target>1.6</target> > </configuration> > > Therefore, according to Maven POM files, oVirt should be build-able using Java 6, but it's not. (?) These maven settings just tell the java compiler to accept Java 6 syntax only and to generate a Java 6 compatible .class file format, but they don't restrict the set of APIs that can be used. > The problem is in backend/manager/modules/bll: StorageDomainCommandBase class uses new Java 7 Long.compare() static method. > > I think we should decide if we want to be compliant with Java 7, or submit a patch that uses Java 6 API (Long.compareTo instance method). > > Vojtech

> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:43:34 PM > Subject: java 1.6 compatibility no more? > > Hi, > > It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine is no longer building on java 1.6. > Is this intentional? > > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >

> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and > DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. > Why not enjoy the bug fixes? I agree, but in that case, why not switch to '1.7' Java source/target compliance for oVirt Maven build as well? If JDK6 cannot be used for building oVirt (because of missing Java 7 APIs, because of LDAP/DNS issues in JDK6, etc.), we should also update our Maven POM files. Currently, when I import oVirt projects into Eclipse (using Eclipse Maven plugin), I'm getting compile errors on 'bll' project. This is because our Maven POM files declare '1.6' Java source/target compliance.

Juan - you are right, but for me, it sounds quite strange to have '1.6' Java source/target compliance for Maven build, and use JDK7 to do the build. Vojtech ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:59:45 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? On 07/18/2012 08:21 PM, Juan Hernandez wrote: > On 07/18/2012 06:33 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >> In fact, for both backend and frontend, Maven effective POM contains: >> >> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> >> <configuration> >> <source>1.6</source> >> <target>1.6</target> >> </configuration> >> >> Therefore, according to Maven POM files, oVirt should be build-able using Java 6, but it's not. (?) > > These maven settings just tell the java compiler to accept Java 6 syntax > only and to generate a Java 6 compatible .class file format, but they > don't restrict the set of APIs that can be used. > >> The problem is in backend/manager/modules/bll: StorageDomainCommandBase class uses new Java 7 Long.compare() static method. >> >> I think we should decide if we want to be compliant with Java 7, or submit a patch that uses Java 6 API (Long.compareTo instance method). >> >> Vojtech As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. Why not enjoy the bug fixes? >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; >> Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:43:34 PM >> Subject: java 1.6 compatibility no more? >> >> Hi, >> >> It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine is no longer building on java 1.6. >> Is this intentional? >> >> Laszlo >> _______________________________________________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >> > > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in GWT code?

> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and > DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. > Why not enjoy the bug fixes? I agree, but in that case, why not switch to '1.7' Java source/target compliance for oVirt Maven build as well? If JDK6 cannot be used for building oVirt (because of missing Java 7 APIs, because of LDAP/DNS issues in JDK6, etc.), we should also update our Maven POM files. Currently, when I import oVirt projects into Eclipse (using Eclipse Maven plugin), I'm getting compile errors on 'bll' project. This is because our Maven POM files declare '1.6' Java source/target compliance. Juan - you are right, but for me, it sounds quite strange to have '1.6' Java source/target compliance for Maven build, and use JDK7 to do the build.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:59:45 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? On 07/18/2012 08:21 PM, Juan Hernandez wrote: > On 07/18/2012 06:33 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >> In fact, for both backend and frontend, Maven effective POM contains: >> >> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> >> <configuration> >> <source>1.6</source> >> <target>1.6</target> >> </configuration> >> >> Therefore, according to Maven POM files, oVirt should be build-able using Java 6, but it's not. (?) > > These maven settings just tell the java compiler to accept Java 6 syntax > only and to generate a Java 6 compatible .class file format, but they > don't restrict the set of APIs that can be used. > >> The problem is in backend/manager/modules/bll: StorageDomainCommandBase class uses new Java 7 Long.compare() static method. >> >> I think we should decide if we want to be compliant with Java 7, or submit a patch that uses Java 6 API (Long.compareTo instance method). >> >> Vojtech As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. Why not enjoy the bug fixes? >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; >> Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:43:34 PM >> Subject: java 1.6 compatibility no more? >> >> Hi, >> >> It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine is no longer building on java 1.6. >> Is this intentional? >> >> Laszlo >> _______________________________________________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >> > > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in GWT code? > > That's a very good point. > > In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note that there are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this reason, our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If someone uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. > > So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code and any other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly referenced by frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, however. > > We could do something like this: > > - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance to Java 7 > - let frontend modules POM (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) > > (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) > > What do you think? > > Vojtech +1 - I really like this idea!

> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:01:00 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > > On 07/19/2012 10:09 AM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and >>> DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. >>> Why not enjoy the bug fixes? >> >> I agree, but in that case, why not switch to '1.7' Java source/target compliance for oVirt Maven build as well? >> >> If JDK6 cannot be used for building oVirt (because of missing Java 7 APIs, because of LDAP/DNS issues in JDK6, etc.), we should also update our Maven POM files. Currently, when I import oVirt projects into Eclipse (using Eclipse Maven plugin), I'm getting compile errors on 'bll' project. This is because our Maven POM files declare '1.6' Java source/target compliance. >> >> Juan - you are right, but for me, it sounds quite strange to have '1.6' Java source/target compliance for Maven build, and use JDK7 to do the build. > > Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in GWT code? > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:59:45 AM >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >> >> On 07/18/2012 08:21 PM, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>> On 07/18/2012 06:33 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>> In fact, for both backend and frontend, Maven effective POM contains: >>>> >>>> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> >>>> <configuration> >>>> <source>1.6</source> >>>> <target>1.6</target> >>>> </configuration> >>>> >>>> Therefore, according to Maven POM files, oVirt should be build-able using Java 6, but it's not. (?) >>> >>> These maven settings just tell the java compiler to accept Java 6 syntax >>> only and to generate a Java 6 compatible .class file format, but they >>> don't restrict the set of APIs that can be used. >>> >>>> The problem is in backend/manager/modules/bll: StorageDomainCommandBase class uses new Java 7 Long.compare() static method. >>>> >>>> I think we should decide if we want to be compliant with Java 7, or submit a patch that uses Java 6 API (Long.compareTo instance method). >>>> >>>> Vojtech >> >> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and >> DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. >> Why not enjoy the bug fixes? >> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; >>>> Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:43:34 PM >>>> Subject: java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine is no longer building on java 1.6. >>>> Is this intentional? >>>> >>>> Laszlo

On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: > On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in GWT code? >> >> That's a very good point. >> >> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note that there are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this reason, our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If someone uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >> >> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code and any other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly referenced by frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, however. >> >> We could do something like this: >> >> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance to Java 7 >> - let frontend modules POM (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >> >> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >> >> What do you think? >> >> Vojtech > > +1 - I really like this idea! +1 from me as well.

>> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:01:00 AM >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >> >> On 07/19/2012 10:09 AM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and >>>> DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. >>>> Why not enjoy the bug fixes? >>> >>> I agree, but in that case, why not switch to '1.7' Java source/target compliance for oVirt Maven build as well? >>> >>> If JDK6 cannot be used for building oVirt (because of missing Java 7 APIs, because of LDAP/DNS issues in JDK6, etc.), we should also update our Maven POM files. Currently, when I import oVirt projects into Eclipse (using Eclipse Maven plugin), I'm getting compile errors on 'bll' project. This is because our Maven POM files declare '1.6' Java source/target compliance. >>> >>> Juan - you are right, but for me, it sounds quite strange to have '1.6' Java source/target compliance for Maven build, and use JDK7 to do the build. >> >> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in GWT code? >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:59:45 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>> >>> On 07/18/2012 08:21 PM, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>> On 07/18/2012 06:33 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>> In fact, for both backend and frontend, Maven effective POM contains: >>>>> >>>>> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> >>>>> <configuration> >>>>> <source>1.6</source> >>>>> <target>1.6</target> >>>>> </configuration> >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, according to Maven POM files, oVirt should be build-able using Java 6, but it's not. (?) >>>> >>>> These maven settings just tell the java compiler to accept Java 6 syntax >>>> only and to generate a Java 6 compatible .class file format, but they >>>> don't restrict the set of APIs that can be used. >>>> >>>>> The problem is in backend/manager/modules/bll: StorageDomainCommandBase class uses new Java 7 Long.compare() static method. >>>>> >>>>> I think we should decide if we want to be compliant with Java 7, or submit a patch that uses Java 6 API (Long.compareTo instance method). >>>>> >>>>> Vojtech >>> >>> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with ldap and >>> DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. >>> Why not enjoy the bug fixes? >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; >>>>> Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:43:34 PM >>>>> Subject: java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine is no longer building on java 1.6. >>>>> Is this intentional? >>>>> >>>>> Laszlo

On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: > On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: >> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in >>>>> GWT code? >>>> >>>> That's a very good point. >>>> >>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note that there >>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this reason, >>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If someone >>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT >>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >>>> >>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code and any >>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly referenced by >>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, however. >>>> >>>> We could do something like this: >>>> >>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance to >>>> Java 7 >>>> - let frontend modules POM (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) >>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >>>> >>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since >>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Vojtech >>> >>> +1 - I really like this idea! >> >> +1 from me as well. > > > There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 (regardless of > GWT - > excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards) > > 1. Are we running with JRE 7? > The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. > > 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with JDK6? > > I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for now - > maybe > until the next ovirt release?). +1 exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs unless there is a good (or at least any) reason for them…

> > There are two reason off the top of my head for that - > If we find an issue it is easier to compare the issue on JDK6 vs. > JDK7 > if the code compiles on both. > > Open JDK7 is out for a year or so, It was packaged for fedora only > in > March 2012, I am not sure how ofter it is used in 'production' > environment, I think we should at least keep ourself the option to > roll-back in case we need it. > > > Livnat > > > >> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>> engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:01:00 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>> >>>> On 07/19/2012 10:09 AM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue >>>>>> with ldap and >>>>>> DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. >>>>>> Why not enjoy the bug fixes? >>>>> >>>>> I agree, but in that case, why not switch to '1.7' Java >>>>> source/target compliance for oVirt Maven build as well? >>>>> >>>>> If JDK6 cannot be used for building oVirt (because of missing >>>>> Java 7 APIs, because of LDAP/DNS issues in JDK6, etc.), we >>>>> should also update our Maven POM files. Currently, when I >>>>> import oVirt projects into Eclipse (using Eclipse Maven >>>>> plugin), I'm getting compile errors on 'bll' project. This is >>>>> because our Maven POM files declare '1.6' Java source/target >>>>> compliance. >>>>> >>>>> Juan - you are right, but for me, it sounds quite strange to >>>>> have '1.6' Java source/target compliance for Maven build, and >>>>> use JDK7 to do the build. >>>> >>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in >>>> GWT code? >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:59:45 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2012 08:21 PM, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>>> On 07/18/2012 06:33 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>>> In fact, for both backend and frontend, Maven effective POM >>>>>>> contains: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> >>>>>>> <configuration> >>>>>>> <source>1.6</source> >>>>>>> <target>1.6</target> >>>>>>> </configuration> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore, according to Maven POM files, oVirt should be >>>>>>> build-able using Java 6, but it's not. (?) >>>>>> >>>>>> These maven settings just tell the java compiler to accept >>>>>> Java 6 syntax >>>>>> only and to generate a Java 6 compatible .class file format, >>>>>> but they >>>>>> don't restrict the set of APIs that can be used. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is in backend/manager/modules/bll: >>>>>>> StorageDomainCommandBase class uses new Java 7 >>>>>>> Long.compare() static method. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we should decide if we want to be compliant with Java >>>>>>> 7, or submit a patch that uses Java 6 API (Long.compareTo >>>>>>> instance method). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vojtech >>>>> >>>>> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with >>>>> ldap and >>>>> DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. >>>>> Why not enjoy the bug fixes? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; >>>>>>> Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:43:34 PM >>>>>>> Subject: java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine >>>>>>> is no longer building on java 1.6. >>>>>>> Is this intentional? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Laszlo >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: >> >>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in >>>>>>> GWT code? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>>>> >>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note that there >>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this reason, >>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If someone >>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT >>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code and any >>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly referenced by >>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, however. >>>>>> >>>>>> We could do something like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance to >>>>>> Java 7 >>>>>> - let frontend modules POM (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) >>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >>>>>> >>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since >>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Vojtech >>>>> >>>>> +1 - I really like this idea! >>>> >>>> +1 from me as well. >>> >>> >>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 (regardless of >>> GWT - >>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards) >>> >>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7? >>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. >>> >>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with JDK6? >>> >>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for now - >>> maybe >>> until the next ovirt release?). >> +1 >> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs unless there >> is a good (or at least any) reason for them… > > +1 +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow comparing behavior while java 7 is still young.

_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:04:17 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? Hi, At the moment if you update the <source> and <target> settings of the compiler plugin to 1.7 in the root pom, the project will build fine, but some of the junit tests will fail. (some strange problem with bytecode manipulation see here http://code.google.com/p/powermock/issues/detail?id=355)

Moving only the <source> does not work, moving only the <target> leaves the junit tests failing. So as you see I have rejected my own patch :-) http://gerrit.ovirt.org/6447/ Laszlo ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:41:26 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > > On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: > > On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: > >>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in > >>> GWT code? > >> > >> That's a very good point. > >> > >> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note that there > >> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this reason, > >> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If someone > >> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT compiler > >> will throw an error and the build will fail. > >> > >> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code and any > >> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly referenced by > >> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, however. > >> > >> We could do something like this: > >> > >> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance to > >> Java > >> 7 > >> - let frontend modules POM (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) > >> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) > >> > >> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since > >> frontend > >> compilation results in JavaScript code) > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Vojtech > > > > +1 - I really like this idea! > > +1 from me as well. > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; > >> To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > >> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt;, > >> engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > >> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:01:00 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > >> > >> On 07/19/2012 10:09 AM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: > >>>> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue > >>>> with > >>>> ldap and > >>>> DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. > >>>> Why not enjoy the bug fixes? > >>> > >>> I agree, but in that case, why not switch to '1.7' Java > >>> source/target compliance for oVirt Maven build as well? > >>> > >>> If JDK6 cannot be used for building oVirt (because of missing > >>> Java 7 APIs, because of LDAP/DNS issues in JDK6, etc.), we > >>> should also update our Maven POM files. Currently, when I > >>> import > >>> oVirt projects into Eclipse (using Eclipse Maven plugin), I'm > >>> getting compile errors on 'bll' project. This is because our > >>> Maven POM files declare '1.6' Java source/target compliance. > >>> > >>> Juan - you are right, but for me, it sounds quite strange to > >>> have > >>> '1.6' Java source/target compliance for Maven build, and use > >>> JDK7 to do the build. > >> > >> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax in > >> GWT > >> code? > >> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; > >>> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > >>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:59:45 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > >>> > >>> On 07/18/2012 08:21 PM, Juan Hernandez wrote: > >>>> On 07/18/2012 06:33 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: > >>>>> In fact, for both backend and frontend, Maven effective POM > >>>>> contains: > >>>>> > >>>>> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> > >>>>> <configuration> > >>>>> <source>1.6</source> > >>>>> <target>1.6</target> > >>>>> </configuration> > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore, according to Maven POM files, oVirt should be > >>>>> build-able using Java 6, but it's not. (?) > >>>> > >>>> These maven settings just tell the java compiler to accept > >>>> Java > >>>> 6 syntax > >>>> only and to generate a Java 6 compatible .class file format, > >>>> but > >>>> they > >>>> don't restrict the set of APIs that can be used. > >>>> > >>>>> The problem is in backend/manager/modules/bll: > >>>>> StorageDomainCommandBase class uses new Java 7 Long.compare() > >>>>> static method. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think we should decide if we want to be compliant with Java > >>>>> 7, or submit a patch that uses Java 6 API (Long.compareTo > >>>>> instance method). > >>>>> > >>>>> Vojtech > >>> > >>> As I previously emailed - JDK7 already fixed a known issue with > >>> ldap and > >>> DNS ,and made one of my patches at gerrit redundant. > >>> Why not enjoy the bug fixes? > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>> From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > >>>>> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > >>>>> Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:43:34 PM > >>>>> Subject: java 1.6 compatibility no more? > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> It may be a historic moment, but for a few hours oVirt engine > >>>>> is no longer building on java 1.6. > >>>>> Is this intentional? > >>>>> > >>>>> Laszlo > > > -- > Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, > planta > 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain > Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red > Hat > S.L. > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:50:47 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > > On 21/07/12 15:15, Itamar Heim wrote: >> On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 syntax >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> GWT code? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note that >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this >>>>>>>> reason, >>>>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If someone >>>>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT >>>>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code and >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly referenced >>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, however. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We could do something like this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance to >>>>>>>> Java 7 >>>>>>>> - let frontend modules POM >>>>>>>> (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) >>>>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since >>>>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vojtech >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 - I really like this idea! >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 from me as well. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 (regardless of >>>>> GWT - >>>>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards) >>>>> >>>>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7? >>>>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with JDK6? >>>>> >>>>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for now - >>>>> maybe >>>>> until the next ovirt release?). >>>> +1 >>>> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs unless >>>> there >>>> is a good (or at least any) reason for them… >>> >>> +1 >> >> +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow >> comparing >> behavior while java 7 is still young. > > Since no one objected, we'll go with JDK6 syntax compatibility for > Now. I'm a very small fan of enforcing policy by reviewers. Not that the community reviews aren't great - but people miss things. Here's my take on Maven's enforcer plugin to actually verify we aren't compiling with JDK 7: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6523

comments welcome. > > Kublin - can you please send a patch to remove the usage of > Long.Compare > in StorageDomainCommandBase > > Thanks, Livnat > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >

From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:34:32 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? ----- Original Message ----- > On 07/22/2012 07:38 PM, Allon Mureinik wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; > >> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Kublin" > >> <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; > >> Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, > >> engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > >> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:50:47 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > >> > >> On 21/07/12 15:15, Itamar Heim wrote: > >>> On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: > >>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 > >>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> GWT code? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That's a very good point. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this > >>>>>>>>> reason, > >>>>>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If > >>>>>>>>> someone > >>>>>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT > >>>>>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly > >>>>>>>>> referenced > >>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, > >>>>>>>>> however. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We could do something like this: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> Java 7 > >>>>>>>>> - let frontend modules POM > >>>>>>>>> (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) > >>>>>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since > >>>>>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Vojtech > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 - I really like this idea! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 from me as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 > >>>>>> (regardless > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> GWT - > >>>>>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7? > >>>>>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with JDK6? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for > >>>>>> now > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> maybe > >>>>>> until the next ovirt release?). > >>>>> +1 > >>>>> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs > >>>>> unless > >>>>> there > >>>>> is a good (or at least any) reason for them… > >>>> > >>>> +1 > >>> > >>> +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow > >>> comparing > >>> behavior while java 7 is still young. > >> > >> Since no one objected, we'll go with JDK6 syntax compatibility > >> for > >> Now. > > I'm a very small fan of enforcing policy by reviewers. > > Not that the community reviews aren't great - but people miss > > things. > > > > Here's my take on Maven's enforcer plugin to actually verify we > > aren't compiling with JDK 7: > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6523 > > we don't want to enforce compilation or run with JDK 6, only to > preserve > backward compatibility. > I'm for jenkins to have a job to compile and run unitests with > openjdk 6 > to be on the safe side. > Instead of enforcing the compilation to be run with a specific jdk we can enforce that the code is java 6 compatible with: <plugin> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> <version>2.0.2</version> <configuration> <source>1.6</source> <target>1.6</target> </configuration> </plugin>

> > > > comments welcome. > > > >> > >> Kublin - can you please send a patch to remove the usage of > >> Long.Compare > >> in StorageDomainCommandBase > >> > >> Thanks, Livnat > >> > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Engine-devel mailing list > >>> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Engine-devel mailing list > >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael > Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:41:00 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > > On 07/22/2012 07:38 PM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Kublin" >>> <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:50:47 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>> >>> On 21/07/12 15:15, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>> On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> GWT code? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note that >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this >>>>>>>>>> reason, >>>>>>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If >>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT >>>>>>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly >>>>>>>>>> referenced >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, however. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We could do something like this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> Java 7 >>>>>>>>>> - let frontend modules POM >>>>>>>>>> (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) >>>>>>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since >>>>>>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Vojtech >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 - I really like this idea! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 from me as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 (regardless >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> GWT - >>>>>>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7? >>>>>>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with JDK6? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for now >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>> until the next ovirt release?). >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs unless >>>>>> there >>>>>> is a good (or at least any) reason for them… >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>> >>>> +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow >>>> comparing >>>> behavior while java 7 is still young. >>> >>> Since no one objected, we'll go with JDK6 syntax compatibility for >>> Now. >> I'm a very small fan of enforcing policy by reviewers. >> Not that the community reviews aren't great - but people miss >> things. >> >> Here's my take on Maven's enforcer plugin to actually verify we >> aren't compiling with JDK 7: >> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6523 > > we don't want to enforce compilation or run with JDK 6, only to > preserve > backward compatibility. > I'm for jenkins to have a job to compile and run unitests with > openjdk 6 > to be on the safe side. I don't understand this suggestion. What you're saying is that you can compile with whatever JDK you want, but: - it won't compile with JDKs prior to 6, since we're using 6's features. - you aren't allowed to use JDK 7 features, and if you do, you'll get an email from jenkins that you broke something and must fix it. To me, this sounds a lot like enforcing JDK 6 compatibility.

/today/ if have way too many (i.e., >0) jenkins breaks, a lot of which could be avoided by not running with -DskipTetst or making sure to run with -Penable-dao-tests. I fear this suggestion will just add to this "noise", and could easily be avoided.

> >> >> comments welcome. >> >>> >>> Kublin - can you please send a patch to remove the usage of >>> Long.Compare >>> in StorageDomainCommandBase >>> >>> Thanks, Livnat >>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Engine-devel mailing list >>>> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Engine-devel mailing list >>> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >>> > > >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael > Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:43:02 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > > On 07/23/2012 08:29 AM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" >>> <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael >>> Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:41:00 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>> >>> On 07/22/2012 07:38 PM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Kublin" >>>>> <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>>> engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:50:47 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>> >>>>> On 21/07/12 15:15, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>>>> On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> GWT code? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this >>>>>>>>>>>> reason, >>>>>>>>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If >>>>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT >>>>>>>>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend code >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly >>>>>>>>>>>> referenced >>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, >>>>>>>>>>>> however. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We could do something like this: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target compliance >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>> - let frontend modules POM >>>>>>>>>>>> (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) >>>>>>>>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 since >>>>>>>>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vojtech >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 - I really like this idea! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 from me as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 >>>>>>>>> (regardless >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> GWT - >>>>>>>>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7? >>>>>>>>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with JDK6? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for >>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>> until the next ovirt release?). >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs >>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> is a good (or at least any) reason for them… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow >>>>>> comparing >>>>>> behavior while java 7 is still young. >>>>> >>>>> Since no one objected, we'll go with JDK6 syntax compatibility >>>>> for >>>>> Now. >>>> I'm a very small fan of enforcing policy by reviewers. >>>> Not that the community reviews aren't great - but people miss >>>> things. >>>> >>>> Here's my take on Maven's enforcer plugin to actually verify we >>>> aren't compiling with JDK 7: >>>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6523 >>> >>> we don't want to enforce compilation or run with JDK 6, only to >>> preserve >>> backward compatibility. >>> I'm for jenkins to have a job to compile and run unitests with >>> openjdk 6 >>> to be on the safe side. >> >> I don't understand this suggestion. >> What you're saying is that you can compile with whatever JDK you >> want, but: >> - it won't compile with JDKs prior to 6, since we're using 6's >> features. >> - you aren't allowed to use JDK 7 features, and if you do, you'll >> get an email from jenkins that you broke something and must fix >> it. >> >> To me, this sounds a lot like enforcing JDK 6 compatibility. >> > > its preserving jdk 6 compatibility for a few more months, not > enforcing > to use jdk 6 compiler. Fair enough. > >> /today/ if have way too many (i.e., >0) jenkins breaks, a lot of >> which could be avoided by not running with -DskipTetst or making >> sure to run with -Penable-dao-tests. >> I fear this suggestion will just add to this "noise", and could >> easily be avoided. > > jenkins breaks should be visible at patch level prior to commit, > something we are trying to resolve by adding more hardware to allow > running the various tests at patch level rather than post commit > only. I agree that this is an excellent goal, but I maintain that this is an uncomfortable way to work. I would still like a way to check, on my own machine, as part of my compilation process, that I'm not doing anything I shouldn't. Here's my second take on the issue, using Animal Sniffer (http://mojo.codehaus.org/animal-sniffer/): http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6540 Again, comments welcome.

From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:22:37 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? On 07/23/2012 11:46 AM, Allon Mureinik wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" >> <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael >> Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:43:02 AM >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >> >> On 07/23/2012 08:29 AM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" >>>> <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael >>>> Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:41:00 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>> >>>> On 07/22/2012 07:38 PM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Kublin" >>>>>> <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>>>> engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:50:47 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 21/07/12 15:15, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> GWT code? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, >>>>>>>>>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If >>>>>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT >>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend >>>>>>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly >>>>>>>>>>>>> referenced >>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, >>>>>>>>>>>>> however. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We could do something like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target >>>>>>>>>>>>> compliance >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>> - let frontend modules POM >>>>>>>>>>>>> (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) >>>>>>>>>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vojtech >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - I really like this idea! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 from me as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 >>>>>>>>>> (regardless >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> GWT - >>>>>>>>>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7? >>>>>>>>>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with >>>>>>>>>> JDK6? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for >>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>>> until the next ovirt release?). >>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs >>>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> is a good (or at least any) reason for them… >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow >>>>>>> comparing >>>>>>> behavior while java 7 is still young. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since no one objected, we'll go with JDK6 syntax compatibility >>>>>> for >>>>>> Now. >>>>> I'm a very small fan of enforcing policy by reviewers. >>>>> Not that the community reviews aren't great - but people miss >>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> Here's my take on Maven's enforcer plugin to actually verify we >>>>> aren't compiling with JDK 7: >>>>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6523 >>>> >>>> we don't want to enforce compilation or run with JDK 6, only to >>>> preserve >>>> backward compatibility. >>>> I'm for jenkins to have a job to compile and run unitests with >>>> openjdk 6 >>>> to be on the safe side. >>> >>> I don't understand this suggestion. >>> What you're saying is that you can compile with whatever JDK you >>> want, but: >>> - it won't compile with JDKs prior to 6, since we're using 6's >>> features. >>> - you aren't allowed to use JDK 7 features, and if you do, you'll >>> get an email from jenkins that you broke something and must fix >>> it. >>> >>> To me, this sounds a lot like enforcing JDK 6 compatibility. >>> >> >> its preserving jdk 6 compatibility for a few more months, not >> enforcing >> to use jdk 6 compiler. > Fair enough. > >> >>> /today/ if have way too many (i.e., >0) jenkins breaks, a lot of >>> which could be avoided by not running with -DskipTetst or making >>> sure to run with -Penable-dao-tests. >>> I fear this suggestion will just add to this "noise", and could >>> easily be avoided. >> >> jenkins breaks should be visible at patch level prior to commit, >> something we are trying to resolve by adding more hardware to >> allow >> running the various tests at patch level rather than post commit >> only. > I agree that this is an excellent goal, but I maintain that this is > an uncomfortable way to work. > I would still like a way to check, on my own machine, as part of my > compilation process, that I'm not doing anything I shouldn't. > Here's my second take on the issue, using Animal Sniffer > (http://mojo.codehaus.org/animal-sniffer/): > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6540 > > Again, comments welcome. Before going ahead I would check that using it doesn't increase the already long compilation time to an unacceptable level.

Also need to make sure that the new dependency is available in the build environments we use.

I am specially concerned about the Fedora build system, where we have the plugin but not the signatures for the JDKs.

This means that we will need to ignore the plugin or build the signatures ourselves.

Also take into account that every new maven plugin we add to the POMs introduces new potential problems with the maven eclipse support.

I think we can leave the decision to each developer, maybe providing an script that calls "mvn animal-sniffer:check ..." with the right parameters, maybe with git pre-commit hook, to make it more automatic.

This combined with the Jenkins checks can be a good compromise. -- Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Juan Hernandez&quot;&lt;jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Allon Mureinik&quot;&lt;amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Itamar Heim&quot;&lt;iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:22:37 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? > > On 07/23/2012 11:46 AM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Itamar Heim&quot;&lt;iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Allon Mureinik&quot;&lt;amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Cc: "Livnat Peer&quot;&lt;lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" >>> <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael >>> Kublin&quot;&lt;mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:43:02 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>> >>> On 07/23/2012 08:29 AM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Itamar Heim&quot;&lt;iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> To: "Allon Mureinik&quot;&lt;amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> Cc: "Livnat Peer&quot;&lt;lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" >>>>> <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael >>>>> Kublin&quot;&lt;mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:41:00 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>> >>>>> On 07/22/2012 07:38 PM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Livnat Peer&quot;&lt;lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> To: "Itamar Heim&quot;&lt;iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Kublin" >>>>>>> <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> Cc: "Juan Hernandez&quot;&lt;jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>>>>> engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:50:47 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 21/07/12 15:15, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GWT code? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, GWT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend >>>>>>>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> referenced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> however. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could do something like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compliance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - let frontend modules POM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vojtech >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - I really like this idea! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 from me as well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 >>>>>>>>>>> (regardless >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> GWT - >>>>>>>>>>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps backwards) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7? >>>>>>>>>>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with >>>>>>>>>>> JDK6? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least for >>>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>>>> until the next ovirt release?). >>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs >>>>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> is a good (or at least any) reason for them… >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow >>>>>>>> comparing >>>>>>>> behavior while java 7 is still young. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since no one objected, we'll go with JDK6 syntax compatibility >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> Now. >>>>>> I'm a very small fan of enforcing policy by reviewers. >>>>>> Not that the community reviews aren't great - but people miss >>>>>> things. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's my take on Maven's enforcer plugin to actually verify we >>>>>> aren't compiling with JDK 7: >>>>>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6523 >>>>> >>>>> we don't want to enforce compilation or run with JDK 6, only to >>>>> preserve >>>>> backward compatibility. >>>>> I'm for jenkins to have a job to compile and run unitests with >>>>> openjdk 6 >>>>> to be on the safe side. >>>> >>>> I don't understand this suggestion. >>>> What you're saying is that you can compile with whatever JDK you >>>> want, but: >>>> - it won't compile with JDKs prior to 6, since we're using 6's >>>> features. >>>> - you aren't allowed to use JDK 7 features, and if you do, you'll >>>> get an email from jenkins that you broke something and must fix >>>> it. >>>> >>>> To me, this sounds a lot like enforcing JDK 6 compatibility. >>>> >>> >>> its preserving jdk 6 compatibility for a few more months, not >>> enforcing >>> to use jdk 6 compiler. >> Fair enough. >> >>> >>>> /today/ if have way too many (i.e.,>0) jenkins breaks, a lot of >>>> which could be avoided by not running with -DskipTetst or making >>>> sure to run with -Penable-dao-tests. >>>> I fear this suggestion will just add to this "noise", and could >>>> easily be avoided. >>> >>> jenkins breaks should be visible at patch level prior to commit, >>> something we are trying to resolve by adding more hardware to >>> allow >>> running the various tests at patch level rather than post commit >>> only. >> I agree that this is an excellent goal, but I maintain that this is >> an uncomfortable way to work. >> I would still like a way to check, on my own machine, as part of my >> compilation process, that I'm not doing anything I shouldn't. >> Here's my second take on the issue, using Animal Sniffer >> (http://mojo.codehaus.org/animal-sniffer/): >> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6540 >> >> Again, comments welcome. > > Before going ahead I would check that using it doesn't increase the > already long compilation time to an unacceptable level. mvn clean install on my machine took just over 5 minutes - not too bad considering that up till a month ago or so it took 15-20 minutes to run the test suite. > > Also need to make sure that the new dependency is available in the > build > environments we use. Built it against brew's repo, seemed to work fine. If you have any more suggestions on how to check it, please advise. > I am specially concerned about the Fedora build > system, where we have the plugin but not the signatures for the JDKs. The signatures are provided as part of the plugin - they are not taken directly from the JDK. Or am I missing something in your point? > This means that we will need to ignore the plugin or build the > signatures ourselves. Not so - see above. > > Also take into account that every new maven plugin we add to the POMs > introduces new potential problems with the maven eclipse support. True. IMHO, it's a small price to pay, but I guess that's why we discuss things upstream - to get different opinions ;-) > > I think we can leave the decision to each developer, maybe providing > an > script that calls "mvn animal-sniffer:check ..." with the right > parameters, maybe with git pre-commit hook, to make it more > automatic. I really don't like this approach, but again - difference of opinions :-) Let's gather somemore feedback before deciding either way?

> This combined with the Jenkins checks can be a good compromise.

> > -- > Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta > 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain > Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat > S.L. > > > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 2:31:24 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? On 07/23/2012 01:02 PM, Allon Mureinik wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:22:37 PM >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >> >> On 07/23/2012 11:46 AM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" >>>> <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael >>>> Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:43:02 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>> >>>> On 07/23/2012 08:29 AM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> To: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" >>>>>> <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Michael >>>>>> Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:41:00 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/22/2012 07:38 PM, Allon Mureinik wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Kublin" >>>>>>>> <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>> Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>>>>>> engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:50:47 AM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] java 1.6 compatibility no more? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 21/07/12 15:15, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 03:34 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 14:14 , Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/07/12 14:41, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 01:39 PM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/19/2012 02:31 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we need that (the source part) to avoid Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GWT code? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, GWT compiler supports Java 5 syntax (note >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no language changes between Java 5 and 6). For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our frontend code should be compliant with Java 5. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses new Java 7 language features in frontend code, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GWT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler will throw an error and the build will fail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the 'Java 5 only' limitation applies to frontend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other code (e.g. shared modules) that is directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referenced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frontend code. This shouldn't affect the backend, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could do something like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - let oVirt root POM declare source and target >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compliance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - let frontend modules POM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (frontend/webadmin/modules/pom.xml) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare source compliance to Java 5 (or 6) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (note that target compliance can be left to Java 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frontend compilation results in JavaScript code) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vojtech >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - I really like this idea! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 from me as well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are two calls to make when it comes to JDK7 >>>>>>>>>>>> (regardless >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> GWT - >>>>>>>>>>>> excuse me for taking this discussion some steps >>>>>>>>>>>> backwards) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Are we running with JRE 7? >>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is yes we agreed on that a few months ago. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Are we using code syntax which is incompatible with >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK6? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think the answer to the above should be no (at least >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>>>>> until the next ovirt release?). >>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>> exactly. Why starting with jdk6 incompatible constructs >>>>>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>> is a good (or at least any) reason for them… >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 - there is merit keeping backward compatibility to allow >>>>>>>>> comparing >>>>>>>>> behavior while java 7 is still young. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since no one objected, we'll go with JDK6 syntax >>>>>>>> compatibility >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> Now. >>>>>>> I'm a very small fan of enforcing policy by reviewers. >>>>>>> Not that the community reviews aren't great - but people miss >>>>>>> things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's my take on Maven's enforcer plugin to actually verify >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> aren't compiling with JDK 7: >>>>>>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6523 >>>>>> >>>>>> we don't want to enforce compilation or run with JDK 6, only >>>>>> to >>>>>> preserve >>>>>> backward compatibility. >>>>>> I'm for jenkins to have a job to compile and run unitests with >>>>>> openjdk 6 >>>>>> to be on the safe side. >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand this suggestion. >>>>> What you're saying is that you can compile with whatever JDK >>>>> you >>>>> want, but: >>>>> - it won't compile with JDKs prior to 6, since we're using 6's >>>>> features. >>>>> - you aren't allowed to use JDK 7 features, and if you do, >>>>> you'll >>>>> get an email from jenkins that you broke something and must fix >>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> To me, this sounds a lot like enforcing JDK 6 compatibility. >>>>> >>>> >>>> its preserving jdk 6 compatibility for a few more months, not >>>> enforcing >>>> to use jdk 6 compiler. >>> Fair enough. >>> >>>> >>>>> /today/ if have way too many (i.e., >0) jenkins breaks, a lot >>>>> of >>>>> which could be avoided by not running with -DskipTetst or >>>>> making >>>>> sure to run with -Penable-dao-tests. >>>>> I fear this suggestion will just add to this "noise", and could >>>>> easily be avoided. >>>> >>>> jenkins breaks should be visible at patch level prior to commit, >>>> something we are trying to resolve by adding more hardware to >>>> allow >>>> running the various tests at patch level rather than post commit >>>> only. >>> I agree that this is an excellent goal, but I maintain that this >>> is >>> an uncomfortable way to work. >>> I would still like a way to check, on my own machine, as part of >>> my >>> compilation process, that I'm not doing anything I shouldn't. >>> Here's my second take on the issue, using Animal Sniffer >>> (http://mojo.codehaus.org/animal-sniffer/): >>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6540 >>> >>> Again, comments welcome. >> >> Before going ahead I would check that using it doesn't increase >> the >> already long compilation time to an unacceptable level. > mvn clean install on my machine took just over 5 minutes - not too > bad considering that up till a month ago or so it took 15-20 > minutes to run the test suite. Can you compare the build with and without animal-sniffer? Just to have an idea of what is the difference. Anyhow five minutes seems acceptable to me.

>> Also need to make sure that the new dependency is available in the >> build >> environments we use. > Built it against brew's repo, seemed to work fine. > If you have any more suggestions on how to check it, please advise. That is very good. Actually building there would be even better. >> I am specially concerned about the Fedora build >> system, where we have the plugin but not the signatures for the >> JDKs. > The signatures are provided as part of the plugin - they are not > taken directly from the JDK. > Or am I missing something in your point? I don't know very well this plugin, but it is my understanding that the signatures are additional dependencies that need to be downloaded from the maven repository. In your patch you are using the following: <signature> <groupId>org.jvnet.animal-sniffer</groupId> <artifactId>java1.6</artifactId> <version>1.0</version> </signature> This org.jvnet.animal-sniffer:java1.6:1.0 artifact is what I can't find in the Fedora build system. Not a big problem, this can be patched out while building the package, just a minor inconvenience.

>> This means that we will need to ignore the plugin or build the >> signatures ourselves. > Not so - see above. > >> >> Also take into account that every new maven plugin we add to the >> POMs >> introduces new potential problems with the maven eclipse support. > True. > IMHO, it's a small price to pay, but I guess that's why we discuss > things upstream - to get different opinions ;-) Well, for me personally the price is actually zero, as I don't use the Eclipse maven support ;-) . But I know that many people hates when they try to import the projects and they get errors because of plugins that Eclipse doesn't understand. Let's see what they think. >> I think we can leave the decision to each developer, maybe >> providing >> an >> script that calls "mvn animal-sniffer:check ..." with the right >> parameters, maybe with git pre-commit hook, to make it more >> automatic. > I really don't like this approach, but again - difference of > opinions :-) > Let's gather somemore feedback before deciding either way? Yes, of course. In my opinion adding this check is a good idea, and you already cleared most of the objections. >> This combined with the Jenkins checks can be a good compromise. -- Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.