[ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils

Wed Sep 3 06:07:47 UTC 2014

On 08/29/2014 02:52 AM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
> I would like to sum things up (as I understood from this thread) -
> a. We will defer the move to commons collections4.
> b. We should introduce some class renaming, not have LinqXXX

I think those renaming and general refactoring of compat should be a 
series of bugzilla's we should communicate as 
entry-level,low-hanging-fruits,you-name-it
  for new comers to ovirt.

> c. Later on we can shift to an "already maintained" package.

I wonder how close we are to moving to java8 where all these 
dependencies (commonsX, LinqWhatever) could go to the waste bin.

probably a mix of jboss/rhel/gwt.

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs at redhat.com>
>> To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme at redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme at redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim"
>>>> <iheim at redhat.com>, devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme at redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim"
>>>>> <iheim at redhat.com>, devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim"
>>>>>> <iheim at redhat.com>, devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim"
>>>>>>> <iheim at redhat.com>, devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>, devel at ovirt.org, "Alon
>>>>>>>> Bar-Lev"
>>>>>>>> <alonbl at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Yevgeny
>>>>>>>>>> Zaspitsky"
>>>>>>>>>> <yzaspits at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "Moti Asayag" <masayag at redhat.com>, "Allon Mureinik"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <amureini at redhat.com>, devel at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Moti Asayag" <masayag at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Allon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mureinik"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <amureini at redhat.com>, devel at 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 at ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel