[ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils

Yair Zaslavsky yzaslavs at redhat.com
Wed Sep 3 06:15:17 UTC 2014 


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roy Golan" <rgolan at redhat.com>
> To: devel at ovirt.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 9:07:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [ENGINE] thoughts about LinqUtils
> 
> On 08/29/2014 02:52 AM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote:
> > Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
> > I would like to sum things up (as I understood from this thread) -
> > a. We will defer the move to commons collections4.
> > b. We should introduce some class renaming, not have LinqXXX
> 
> I think those renaming and general refactoring of compat should be a
> series of bugzilla's we should communicate as
> entry-level,low-hanging-fruits,you-name-it
>   for new comers to ovirt.
> 
> > c. Later on we can shift to an "already maintained" package.
> 
> I wonder how close we are to moving to java8 where all these
> dependencies (commonsX, LinqWhatever) could go to the waste bin.
> 
> probably a mix of jboss/rhel/gwt.

During one of my lastest patches, I disovered there is also Linq in GWT code. sweet.

> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>

More information about the Devel mailing list