You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@atosorigin.com> on 2010/07/13 17:13:57 UTC
Continuum and OpenEJB
Hey guys,
Most of our CI build fail.
IMHO, it's not relevant to use a CI system if we never take build results
into account.
Some users noticed that too, and we should fix that situation.
So, I tried digging into continuum logs and fix all issues (as much as
possible).
To name but a few, i dug into an XMLInputFactory issue (thanks Thiago)
recently introduced in the trunk.
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17477_01/javaee/5/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/6/docs/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
As described by the javadoc, #newFactory should be available in Java 6 but
actually, it appears only in a minor release.
Anyway, I registered to Continuum in order to edit OpenEJB jobs. I was
looking if we could easily switch to the latest VM.
Daniel suggested to open the INFRA Jira against continuum. But before that,
I want to be sure that the latest VM is not already installed.
Can anyone give me rights to edit jobs?
Your opinion is also welcome.
Jean-Louis
--
View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Continuum-and-OpenEJB-tp2287580p2287580.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Continuum and OpenEJB
Posted by dsh <da...@googlemail.com>.
Using Geronimo API/libraries sounds like a good thing to me cause we
have full control over them. Honestly it looks kind of strange to me
that the Sun JDK APIs are changing within a minor modification level
of the overall J2SE V6 release. I wonder whether an IBM JDK would
fully support the missing XMLInputFactory methods...
Cheers
Daniel
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:48 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> Most of our CI build fail.
>> IMHO, it's not relevant to use a CI system if we never take build results
>> into account.
>> Some users noticed that too, and we should fix that situation.
>>
>> So, I tried digging into continuum logs and fix all issues (as much as
>> possible).
>> To name but a few, i dug into an XMLInputFactory issue (thanks Thiago)
>> recently introduced in the trunk.
>>
>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17477_01/javaee/5/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/6/docs/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>>
>> As described by the javadoc, #newFactory should be available in Java 6 but
>> actually, it appears only in a minor release.
>>
>> Anyway, I registered to Continuum in order to edit OpenEJB jobs. I was
>> looking if we could easily switch to the latest VM.
>
> For this particular issue maybe we should be compiling/using the geronimo stax api and woodstox stax implementations? Not sure how hard this is to set up in maven. There should be a couple other places where we need something more advanced than the jvm, such as annotations 1.1.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Daniel suggested to open the INFRA Jira against continuum. But before that,
>> I want to be sure that the latest VM is not already installed.
>>
>> Can anyone give me rights to edit jobs?
>>
>> Your opinion is also welcome.
>>
>> Jean-Louis
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Continuum-and-OpenEJB-tp2287580p2287580.html
>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: Continuum and OpenEJB
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jul 13, 2010, at 11:21 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:48 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> Most of our CI build fail.
>>> IMHO, it's not relevant to use a CI system if we never take build results
>>> into account.
>>> Some users noticed that too, and we should fix that situation.
>>>
>>> So, I tried digging into continuum logs and fix all issues (as much as
>>> possible).
>>> To name but a few, i dug into an XMLInputFactory issue (thanks Thiago)
>>> recently introduced in the trunk.
>>>
>>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17477_01/javaee/5/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/6/docs/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>>>
>>> As described by the javadoc, #newFactory should be available in Java 6 but
>>> actually, it appears only in a minor release.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I registered to Continuum in order to edit OpenEJB jobs. I was
>>> looking if we could easily switch to the latest VM.
>>
>> For this particular issue maybe we should be compiling/using the geronimo stax api and woodstox stax implementations? Not sure how hard this is to set up in maven. There should be a couple other places where we need something more advanced than the jvm, such as annotations 1.1.
>
> Maybe we could offer a fallback way to parse the xml if they don't have that particular class available.
well, its part of stax api 1.2 which is part of the ee6 platform, so it ought to be available.
On the other hand setting maven up to really use dependencies to replace stuff in the jdk can be tricky. Not sure how hard it would be in this case.... but it's just a test and there's an equivalent stax 1.0 api, so I changed the code to use that one.... which ought to be available wherever stax is used.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> -David
>
Re: Continuum and OpenEJB
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:48 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> Most of our CI build fail.
>> IMHO, it's not relevant to use a CI system if we never take build results
>> into account.
>> Some users noticed that too, and we should fix that situation.
>>
>> So, I tried digging into continuum logs and fix all issues (as much as
>> possible).
>> To name but a few, i dug into an XMLInputFactory issue (thanks Thiago)
>> recently introduced in the trunk.
>>
>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17477_01/javaee/5/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/6/docs/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>>
>> As described by the javadoc, #newFactory should be available in Java 6 but
>> actually, it appears only in a minor release.
>>
>> Anyway, I registered to Continuum in order to edit OpenEJB jobs. I was
>> looking if we could easily switch to the latest VM.
>
> For this particular issue maybe we should be compiling/using the geronimo stax api and woodstox stax implementations? Not sure how hard this is to set up in maven. There should be a couple other places where we need something more advanced than the jvm, such as annotations 1.1.
Maybe we could offer a fallback way to parse the xml if they don't have that particular class available.
-David
Re: Continuum and OpenEJB
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Most of our CI build fail.
> IMHO, it's not relevant to use a CI system if we never take build results
> into account.
> Some users noticed that too, and we should fix that situation.
>
> So, I tried digging into continuum logs and fix all issues (as much as
> possible).
> To name but a few, i dug into an XMLInputFactory issue (thanks Thiago)
> recently introduced in the trunk.
>
> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17477_01/javaee/5/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/6/docs/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>
> As described by the javadoc, #newFactory should be available in Java 6 but
> actually, it appears only in a minor release.
>
> Anyway, I registered to Continuum in order to edit OpenEJB jobs. I was
> looking if we could easily switch to the latest VM.
For this particular issue maybe we should be compiling/using the geronimo stax api and woodstox stax implementations? Not sure how hard this is to set up in maven. There should be a couple other places where we need something more advanced than the jvm, such as annotations 1.1.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Daniel suggested to open the INFRA Jira against continuum. But before that,
> I want to be sure that the latest VM is not already installed.
>
> Can anyone give me rights to edit jobs?
>
> Your opinion is also welcome.
>
> Jean-Louis
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Continuum-and-OpenEJB-tp2287580p2287580.html
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Continuum and OpenEJB
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@atosorigin.com>.
Thanks a lot Daniel.
David J. already changed the related class. So it should compile.
Anyway, thanks a lot.
Jean-Louis
Daniel S. Haischt-3 wrote:
>
> The JDK got upgraded to a newer version. Please try again:
>
> gmcdonald: java version "1.6.0_20"
> gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_20-b02)
> gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 16.3-b01, mixed mode,
> sharing)java version "1.6.0_20"
> gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_20-b02)
> gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 16.3-b01, mixed mode,
> sharing)ddddgmcdonald@vmbuild:~$ java -version
> gmcdonald: java version "1.6.0_20"
> gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_20-b02)
> gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 16.3-b01, mixed mode,
> sharing)
> gmcdonald: opps
> gmcdonald: anyway, its the correct version now
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:48 AM, dsh <da...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> FYI
>>
>> gmcdonald: gmcdonald@vmbuild:~$ java -version
>> gmcdonald: java version "1.6.0_06"
>> gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_06-b02)
>> gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 10.0-b22, mixed mode,
>> sharing)
>> gmcdonald: look like sunjsk
>> gmcdonald: erm, sunjdk
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
>> <je...@atosorigin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> Most of our CI build fail.
>>> IMHO, it's not relevant to use a CI system if we never take build
>>> results
>>> into account.
>>> Some users noticed that too, and we should fix that situation.
>>>
>>> So, I tried digging into continuum logs and fix all issues (as much as
>>> possible).
>>> To name but a few, i dug into an XMLInputFactory issue (thanks Thiago)
>>> recently introduced in the trunk.
>>>
>>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17477_01/javaee/5/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/6/docs/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>>>
>>> As described by the javadoc, #newFactory should be available in Java 6
>>> but
>>> actually, it appears only in a minor release.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I registered to Continuum in order to edit OpenEJB jobs. I was
>>> looking if we could easily switch to the latest VM.
>>>
>>> Daniel suggested to open the INFRA Jira against continuum. But before
>>> that,
>>> I want to be sure that the latest VM is not already installed.
>>>
>>> Can anyone give me rights to edit jobs?
>>>
>>> Your opinion is also welcome.
>>>
>>> Jean-Louis
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Continuum-and-OpenEJB-tp2287580p2287580.html
>>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Continuum-and-OpenEJB-tp2287580p2289721.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Continuum and OpenEJB
Posted by dsh <da...@googlemail.com>.
The JDK got upgraded to a newer version. Please try again:
gmcdonald: java version "1.6.0_20"
gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_20-b02)
gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 16.3-b01, mixed mode,
sharing)java version "1.6.0_20"
gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_20-b02)
gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 16.3-b01, mixed mode,
sharing)ddddgmcdonald@vmbuild:~$ java -version
gmcdonald: java version "1.6.0_20"
gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_20-b02)
gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 16.3-b01, mixed mode, sharing)
gmcdonald: opps
gmcdonald: anyway, its the correct version now
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:48 AM, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> FYI
>
> gmcdonald: gmcdonald@vmbuild:~$ java -version
> gmcdonald: java version "1.6.0_06"
> gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_06-b02)
> gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 10.0-b22, mixed mode, sharing)
> gmcdonald: look like sunjsk
> gmcdonald: erm, sunjdk
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
> <je...@atosorigin.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> Most of our CI build fail.
>> IMHO, it's not relevant to use a CI system if we never take build results
>> into account.
>> Some users noticed that too, and we should fix that situation.
>>
>> So, I tried digging into continuum logs and fix all issues (as much as
>> possible).
>> To name but a few, i dug into an XMLInputFactory issue (thanks Thiago)
>> recently introduced in the trunk.
>>
>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17477_01/javaee/5/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/6/docs/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>>
>> As described by the javadoc, #newFactory should be available in Java 6 but
>> actually, it appears only in a minor release.
>>
>> Anyway, I registered to Continuum in order to edit OpenEJB jobs. I was
>> looking if we could easily switch to the latest VM.
>>
>> Daniel suggested to open the INFRA Jira against continuum. But before that,
>> I want to be sure that the latest VM is not already installed.
>>
>> Can anyone give me rights to edit jobs?
>>
>> Your opinion is also welcome.
>>
>> Jean-Louis
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Continuum-and-OpenEJB-tp2287580p2287580.html
>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
Re: Continuum and OpenEJB
Posted by dsh <da...@googlemail.com>.
FYI
gmcdonald: gmcdonald@vmbuild:~$ java -version
gmcdonald: java version "1.6.0_06"
gmcdonald: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_06-b02)
gmcdonald: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 10.0-b22, mixed mode, sharing)
gmcdonald: look like sunjsk
gmcdonald: erm, sunjdk
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
<je...@atosorigin.com> wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Most of our CI build fail.
> IMHO, it's not relevant to use a CI system if we never take build results
> into account.
> Some users noticed that too, and we should fix that situation.
>
> So, I tried digging into continuum logs and fix all issues (as much as
> possible).
> To name but a few, i dug into an XMLInputFactory issue (thanks Thiago)
> recently introduced in the trunk.
>
> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17477_01/javaee/5/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17409_01/javase/6/docs/api/javax/xml/stream/XMLInputFactory.html
>
> As described by the javadoc, #newFactory should be available in Java 6 but
> actually, it appears only in a minor release.
>
> Anyway, I registered to Continuum in order to edit OpenEJB jobs. I was
> looking if we could easily switch to the latest VM.
>
> Daniel suggested to open the INFRA Jira against continuum. But before that,
> I want to be sure that the latest VM is not already installed.
>
> Can anyone give me rights to edit jobs?
>
> Your opinion is also welcome.
>
> Jean-Louis
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Continuum-and-OpenEJB-tp2287580p2287580.html
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>