[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipselink-dev] [External] : No org.eclipse.persistence.asm for Eclipselink 2.7.9?
|
Hello!
> Do you think it would be better to keep publishing the same binary under 2, 3, 4+ different version numbers - one for 2.6 stream, one for 2.7, another for 3.0 and in foreseeable also one for 3.1, generally, going forward, one for each maintained version stream - in maven central instead of having just one binary there and letting all streams to depend on that one?
Correct me if I'm wrong please. Each release branch (2.6, 2.7, 3.0,
master) has their own ASM code checked into it, yes? However, we
assume they are all at the same exact code then only build one, assign
it the official ASM version in maven central (for instance
`org.eclipse.persistence:org.eclipse.persistence.asm:9.1.0`), and let
all EclipseLink releases share in that build?
So, for instance, we can build the EclipseLink ASM code in the 2.7
release branch, upload to maven central calling it
`org.eclipse.persistence:org.eclipse.persistence.asm:9.1.0`, AND use
it for the 3.0.2 release as well! Even though the 3.0 release branch
has its own EclipseLink ASM code checked into that git branch...
I think it is great to have ONE EclipseLink ASM release
(`org.eclipse.persistence:org.eclipse.persistence.asm:9.0.0` or
`org.eclipse.persistence:org.eclipse.persistence.asm:9.1.0`) since
there should not be really any differences between EclipseLink
releases (2.6, 2.7, 3.0, master) that warrant needing separate builds.
HOWEVER, I also think it then makes no sense for that ASM code to be
checked into those individual branches. Instead, EclipseLink ASM
should be pull out into its own repository (for instance,
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink-asm or something)
> Well, this is the way it is since EclipseLink 2.5.1 at least, probably since the time this feature was introduced around EclipseLink 2.4.2. There may be even bug filed for this somewhere.
Granted it's been called
`org.eclipse.persistence:org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen.processor`
in maven for a very long time. My only point is that it has also been
called `org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen_*.jar` and
`Bundle-SymbolicName: org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen` for just
as long. Just inconsistent.
Thanks,
Will Dazey
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:12 AM Lukas Jungmann
<lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/21 5:07 PM, William Dazey wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > > No, it is intentional. eclipselink 2.7.9 uses
> > org.eclipse.persistence:org.eclipse.persistence.asm:9.1.0
> >
> > How is that indicated in
> > https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/rt/eclipselink/releases/2.7.9/eclipselink-plugins-2.7.9.v20210604-2c549e2208.zip
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=*rt*eclipselink*releases*2.7.9*eclipselink-plugins-2.7.9.v20210604-2c549e2208.zip__;Ly8vLy8!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!eSOjYOMvm0BH_b4656J9Q_vkopUw3ce2xvSgNsIlAMnGN0-LgaTme8wlF1QATjKrh34$>?
> > Almost nothing has changed in the MANIFEST.MF and now the jar is just
> > called `org.eclipse.persistence.asm.jar`. Compared to
> > `https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/rt/eclipselink/releases/2.7.8/eclipselink-plugins-2.7.8.v20201217-ecdf3c32c4.zip`
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=*rt*eclipselink*releases*2.7.8*eclipselink-plugins-2.7.8.v20201217-ecdf3c32c4.zip*60__;Ly8vLy8l!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!eSOjYOMvm0BH_b4656J9Q_vkopUw3ce2xvSgNsIlAMnGN0-LgaTme8wlF1QApjq-veY$>,
> > I don't see anything that changed to indicate this version convention
> > change on maven central. Maybe the JAR bundle name should be
> > `org.eclipse.persistence.asm_9.1.0.v20210604-2c549e2208.jar`?
>
> Do you think it would be better to keep publishing the same binary
> under 2, 3, 4+ different version numbers - one for 2.6 stream, one for
> 2.7, another for 3.0 and in foreseeable also one for 3.1, generally,
> going forward, one for each maintained version stream - in maven central
> instead of having just one binary there and letting all streams to
> depend on that one? All streams see o.e.p.asm just as any other
> 3rd-party library, like gmbal or most api jars (jakarta.*jar) - so if
> one looks at it from that perspective, the naming is consistent with
> others. It's just the name what reflects the reality wrt origin of the
> file and its relationship to EclipseLink project.
>
> The other difference you see (the qualifier dis-appearance) is caused by
> the switch from Tycho to Maven. Tycho uses, in most cases,
> manifest-first approach to build artifacts and, in general, works with
> qualifiers instead of "SNAPSHOT"s to bring in ability to differentiate 2
> different nightly builds. Maven has no such notion and generally uses
> just snapshots for them providing no "default" way to easily
> differentiate 2 different SNAPSHOT builds.
>
>
> >
> > And no update for ANTRL as well? That hasn't changed from version 3.5.2
> > for years and we still use '2.7.8', '2.7.9', ect. Granted EclipseLink >=
> > 3.0 doesn't use ANTRL anymore, but 2.7 does. Feels inconsistent for 2.7.
>
> I agree that it feels inconsistent. Nobody touched that part of the
> build for about a decade, it's still being rebuilt and republished on
> each release. The only change there I recall was an upgrade of ANTLR
> from sth like 3.2 to 3.5.2 and/or some clean up there in EclipseLink
> 2.5.2 timeframe.
>
> (there used to be class files directly checked in in the repo for both
> ASM as well as ANTLR before 2.5.2)
>
> >
> > Also, comparing Maven Central with
> > `https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/rt/eclipselink/releases`
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=*rt*eclipselink*releases*60__;Ly8vJQ!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!eSOjYOMvm0BH_b4656J9Q_vkopUw3ce2xvSgNsIlAMnGN0-LgaTme8wlF1QAM2O4y5Q$>
> > I notice another difference. In the `eclipse.org/downloads`
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://eclipse.org/downloads*60__;JQ!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!eSOjYOMvm0BH_b4656J9Q_vkopUw3ce2xvSgNsIlAMnGN0-LgaTme8wlF1QANblE-cQ$>
> > artifacts,
> > the `org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen` bundle is called
> > `org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen_2.7.9.v20210604-2c549e2208.jar`
> > and the Manifest also indicates the bundle name to be
> > `org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen`:
> > ```
> > Bundle-Name: EclipseLink JPA ModelGen
> > Bundle-SymbolicName: org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen
> > Bundle-Vendor: Eclipse.org - EclipseLink Project
> > Bundle-Version: 2.7.9.v20210604-2c549e2208
> > ```
> >
> > However, on maven central, the we give the artifact an ID of
> > `org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen.processor`
> > (https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.eclipse.persistence/org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen.processor
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.eclipse.persistence/org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.modelgen.processor__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!eSOjYOMvm0BH_b4656J9Q_vkopUw3ce2xvSgNsIlAMnGN0-LgaTme8wlF1QABj2AAEo$>)?
> > Can we get this inconsistency fixed because it's a bit confusing what
> > the true name of this bundle is supposed to be
>
> Well, this is the way it is since EclipseLink 2.5.1 at least, probably
> since the time this feature was introduced around EclipseLink 2.4.2.
> There may be even bug filed for this somewhere.
>
> thanks,
> --lukas
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Will Dazey
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:54 PM Lukas Jungmann
> > <lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/21/21 6:37 PM, Jody Grassel wrote:
> > > I was checking maven central, and noticed there were no resources
> > for
> > > the maven coordinate
> > > "org.eclipse.persistence:org.eclipse.persistence.asm:2.7.9" -- is
> > this
> > > an omission?
> >
> > No, it is intention. eclipselink 2.7.9 uses
> > org.eclipse.persistence:org.eclipse.persistence.asm:9.1.0 - same
> > version
> > as master and/or 3.0.2.
> >
> > thanks,
> > --lukas
> >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!c282CiRmzlMujtr4Dr0XaiYSiIHmAxdDiXr9s4MI2haeGi5LjKioaMf51c4a3t1ApQQ$
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!c282CiRmzlMujtr4Dr0XaiYSiIHmAxdDiXr9s4MI2haeGi5LjKioaMf51c4a3t1ApQQ$>
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!eSOjYOMvm0BH_b4656J9Q_vkopUw3ce2xvSgNsIlAMnGN0-LgaTme8wlF1QAcJRNF-w$>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!eSOjYOMvm0BH_b4656J9Q_vkopUw3ce2xvSgNsIlAMnGN0-LgaTme8wlF1QAcJRNF-w$
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-dev mailing list
> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
