xmlbeans versions -- please respond

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

xmlbeans versions -- please respond

David Jencks
After struggling with various attempts to use several incompatible
versions at once, I have geronimo + openejb working with xmlbeans v2.

I've modified the plugin to install the schemas that are compiled into
the artifact jar file under typically META-INF/schema, and these
schemas can be extracted by the xmlbeans plugin entity resolver to
resolve schema imports.  This dramatically reduces the use of a catalog
and makes it possible to remove the difficult-to-keep-synchronized
copies of geronimo schemas that are in openejb-builder/src/schema.

I've run a lot of the tck and get the same results with v2 as v1.

I'd like to commit this, well, now to at least the HEAD of geronimo and
openejb.  Any objections?  I would like to do this very soon, such as
this evening.

As part of the snapshot cleanup for m4 we should stop using the 1.0-DEV
version and upgrade to something that's been released.  Choices are
1.0.4 and 2.0.0.  I'd prefer 2, and would be more enthusiastic about
looking for problems with that upgrade, but don't insist.

I will note that having different version of xmlbeans on two versions
of geronimo is incredibly inconvenient, since a complete rebuild is
needed when switching from one to the other.  It may be that having
different versions (M4 vs SNAPSHOT) will make this problem go away, but
I haven't tested this theory.

Opinions on moving M4 to xmlbeans2?

I've opened GERONIMO-738 to track this and to let people look at the
patches to evaluate especially applying to M4.

thanks
david jencks

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: xmlbeans versions -- please respond

ammulder
        If you're confident you have it working, it would be nice to get
in to both HEAD and M4 IMHO:

 * I think M4 is such a huge change that a rebuild is not a big deal

 * It seems like we might have less dramatic changes between M* releases
   going forward.

 * AFAIK we haven't started but do intend to start a full round of M4 TCK
   testing, meaning the code will be tested soon and presumably thoroughly

Aaron

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Jencks wrote:

> After struggling with various attempts to use several incompatible
> versions at once, I have geronimo + openejb working with xmlbeans v2.
>
> I've modified the plugin to install the schemas that are compiled into
> the artifact jar file under typically META-INF/schema, and these
> schemas can be extracted by the xmlbeans plugin entity resolver to
> resolve schema imports.  This dramatically reduces the use of a catalog
> and makes it possible to remove the difficult-to-keep-synchronized
> copies of geronimo schemas that are in openejb-builder/src/schema.
>
> I've run a lot of the tck and get the same results with v2 as v1.
>
> I'd like to commit this, well, now to at least the HEAD of geronimo and
> openejb.  Any objections?  I would like to do this very soon, such as
> this evening.
>
> As part of the snapshot cleanup for m4 we should stop using the 1.0-DEV
> version and upgrade to something that's been released.  Choices are
> 1.0.4 and 2.0.0.  I'd prefer 2, and would be more enthusiastic about
> looking for problems with that upgrade, but don't insist.
>
> I will note that having different version of xmlbeans on two versions
> of geronimo is incredibly inconvenient, since a complete rebuild is
> needed when switching from one to the other.  It may be that having
> different versions (M4 vs SNAPSHOT) will make this problem go away, but
> I haven't tested this theory.
>
> Opinions on moving M4 to xmlbeans2?
>
> I've opened GERONIMO-738 to track this and to let people look at the
> patches to evaluate especially applying to M4.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: xmlbeans versions -- please respond

Geir Magnusson Jr.
In reply to this post by David Jencks
+1  - let me know how and if I can help.

geir

On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> After struggling with various attempts to use several incompatible  
> versions at once, I have geronimo + openejb working with xmlbeans v2.
>
> I've modified the plugin to install the schemas that are compiled  
> into the artifact jar file under typically META-INF/schema, and  
> these schemas can be extracted by the xmlbeans plugin entity  
> resolver to resolve schema imports.  This dramatically reduces the  
> use of a catalog and makes it possible to remove the difficult-to-
> keep-synchronized copies of geronimo schemas that are in openejb-
> builder/src/schema.
>
> I've run a lot of the tck and get the same results with v2 as v1.
>
> I'd like to commit this, well, now to at least the HEAD of geronimo  
> and openejb.  Any objections?  I would like to do this very soon,  
> such as this evening.
>
> As part of the snapshot cleanup for m4 we should stop using the 1.0-
> DEV version and upgrade to something that's been released.  Choices  
> are 1.0.4 and 2.0.0.  I'd prefer 2, and would be more enthusiastic  
> about looking for problems with that upgrade, but don't insist.
>
> I will note that having different version of xmlbeans on two  
> versions of geronimo is incredibly inconvenient, since a complete  
> rebuild is needed when switching from one to the other.  It may be  
> that having different versions (M4 vs SNAPSHOT) will make this  
> problem go away, but I haven't tested this theory.
>
> Opinions on moving M4 to xmlbeans2?
>
> I've opened GERONIMO-738 to track this and to let people look at  
> the patches to evaluate especially applying to M4.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: xmlbeans versions -- please respond

sissonj
In reply to this post by David Jencks
+1 for moving to xmlbeans v2 in HEAD and M4

John

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
proprietary or non-public information.  This information is intended
solely for the designated recipient(s).  If an addressing or transmission
error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy this e-mail.  Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon
this information by unintended recipients is prohibited.  Any opinions
expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally.

David Jencks <[hidden email]> wrote on 13/07/2005 06:45:26 AM:

> After struggling with various attempts to use several incompatible
> versions at once, I have geronimo + openejb working with xmlbeans v2.
>
> I've modified the plugin to install the schemas that are compiled into
> the artifact jar file under typically META-INF/schema, and these
> schemas can be extracted by the xmlbeans plugin entity resolver to
> resolve schema imports.  This dramatically reduces the use of a catalog
> and makes it possible to remove the difficult-to-keep-synchronized
> copies of geronimo schemas that are in openejb-builder/src/schema.
>
> I've run a lot of the tck and get the same results with v2 as v1.
>
> I'd like to commit this, well, now to at least the HEAD of geronimo and
> openejb.  Any objections?  I would like to do this very soon, such as
> this evening.
>
> As part of the snapshot cleanup for m4 we should stop using the 1.0-DEV
> version and upgrade to something that's been released.  Choices are
> 1.0.4 and 2.0.0.  I'd prefer 2, and would be more enthusiastic about
> looking for problems with that upgrade, but don't insist.
>
> I will note that having different version of xmlbeans on two versions
> of geronimo is incredibly inconvenient, since a complete rebuild is
> needed when switching from one to the other.  It may be that having
> different versions (M4 vs SNAPSHOT) will make this problem go away, but
> I haven't tested this theory.
>
> Opinions on moving M4 to xmlbeans2?
>
> I've opened GERONIMO-738 to track this and to let people look at the
> patches to evaluate especially applying to M4.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: xmlbeans versions -- please respond

Alan Cabrera-2
In reply to this post by ammulder
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/12/2005 1:54 PM:

> If you're confident you have it working, it would be nice to get
>in to both HEAD and M4 IMHO:
>
> * I think M4 is such a huge change that a rebuild is not a big deal
>
> * It seems like we might have less dramatic changes between M* releases
>   going forward.
>
> * AFAIK we haven't started but do intend to start a full round of M4 TCK
>   testing, meaning the code will be tested soon and presumably thoroughly
>  
>
-1 on M4

We should not be tossing goodies into the shopping cart when we are in
the checkout lane.


Regards,
Alan



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: xmlbeans versions -- please respond

Alan Cabrera-2
In reply to this post by David Jencks
David Jencks wrote, On 7/12/2005 1:45 PM:

> After struggling with various attempts to use several incompatible
> versions at once, I have geronimo + openejb working with xmlbeans v2.
>
> I've modified the plugin to install the schemas that are compiled into
> the artifact jar file under typically META-INF/schema, and these
> schemas can be extracted by the xmlbeans plugin entity resolver to
> resolve schema imports.  This dramatically reduces the use of a
> catalog and makes it possible to remove the
> difficult-to-keep-synchronized copies of geronimo schemas that are in
> openejb-builder/src/schema.
>
> I've run a lot of the tck and get the same results with v2 as v1.
>
> I'd like to commit this, well, now to at least the HEAD of geronimo
> and openejb.  Any objections?  I would like to do this very soon, such
> as this evening.
>
> As part of the snapshot cleanup for m4 we should stop using the
> 1.0-DEV version and upgrade to something that's been released.  
> Choices are 1.0.4 and 2.0.0.  I'd prefer 2, and would be more
> enthusiastic about looking for problems with that upgrade, but don't
> insist.
>
> I will note that having different version of xmlbeans on two versions
> of geronimo is incredibly inconvenient, since a complete rebuild is
> needed when switching from one to the other.  It may be that having
> different versions (M4 vs SNAPSHOT) will make this problem go away,
> but I haven't tested this theory.
>
> Opinions on moving M4 to xmlbeans2?
>
> I've opened GERONIMO-738 to track this and to let people look at the
> patches to evaluate especially applying to M4.


+1 HEAD
-1 M4 (veto, not a vote)


Regards,
Alan