Chill out man :) Just making sure everyone know the ramifications and intentions.
On Wed 09 Nov 2011 02:43:43 PM CST, David M. Lloyd wrote: > Yup, that's correct. And yeah #3 is optional which is why I said "may". > > On 11/09/2011 02:38 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: >> Thanks David! >> >> Just to make sure I understand. Doing the steps above will allow the >> built artifact to run in either AS 7.0 or 7.1. Correct? >> >> I thought we had said on IRC that Hibernate could really get away with >> (1) and (2) and that JBoss AS 7.0 could specify to use JBoss Logging 3.0 >> via dep-mgmt in its pom(s) rather than allowing Hibernate (or others) to >> pull in Logging 3.1. >> >> On Wed 09 Nov 2011 02:32:11 PM CST, David M. Lloyd wrote: >>> OK folks. I've pushed out jboss-logging 3.1.0.CR1 and >>> jboss-logging-tools 1.0.0.CR4. >>> >>> Here's what you need to do. >>> >>> 0. Update your dep versions (obviously) >>> 1. Add the following switch to your annotation processing step (or to >>> javac if it's combined): -AloggingVersion=3.0 >>> 2. Build your artifacts against jboss-logging 3.1.0.CR1. >>> 3. When you publish the POMs for artifacts built this way, you may >>> specify jboss-logging 3.0.0.GA as the required version, and it will be >>> compatible with such. >>> >>> Basically what you're doing with the -AloggingVersion=3.0 flag is >>> generating larger classes in exchange for backwards compatibility. If >>> you develop other frameworks which are not expected to be supported on >>> AS 7.0 (for example), you do not need this flag (logging version 3.1 >>> is required in this case). >>> >>> If this doesn't solve your issues please let me know right away. >>> >>> On 11/09/2011 08:47 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote: >>>> Yeah, the problem was that to *implement* BasicLogger we had >>>> switched to >>>> using a base class (bundled in 3.1) to implement the multitude of >>>> methods, due to problems associated with generating all the >>>> implementations in every class. >>>> >>>> On 11/09/2011 08:39 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: >>>>> Ok, I am totally confused then. I thought this was a discussion about >>>>> BasicLogger. But we have been using that afaik way before our recent >>>>> upgrade to 3.1 >>>>> >>>>> On Wed 09 Nov 2011 08:23:33 AM CST, David M. Lloyd wrote: >>>>>> On 11/09/2011 08:22 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:00:07 +0100, Steve Ebersole >>>>>>> <st...@hibernate.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe instead of "shading in" the removed class you could just >>>>>>>> add it >>>>>>>> back to the JBoss Logging codebase? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, why can we not do that? >>>>>> >>>>>> You have it backwards. We didn't *remove* a class, we *added* one - >>>>>> which makes it not present in 3.0.x. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/09/2011 04:48 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >>>>>>>>> I see a few outputs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - JBoss Logging 3.1.0.Final is released in the next 24h and we >>>>>>>>> use it >>>>>>>>> in Core and Search >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's stopping a 3.1.0.Final release? >>>>>> >>>>>> Trying to resolve this issue for you guys. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- st...@hibernate.org http://hibernate.org _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
