[jboss-as7-dev] Removing JAXR & backward compatiblity

David M. Lloyd david.lloyd at redhat.com
Sat Mar 2 10:32:13 EST 2013


I agree with Brian.  This is simpler from a coding perspective, but it 
is more complex from every other perspective.  I like Brian's 
alternative service loader idea though.

On 03/01/2013 04:55 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> They have to have logic that prevents their use on an AS8 server. Unless
> we are willing to tell folks who use them on AS8 servers and find
> problems that they're out of luck and should know better.
>
> On 3/1/13 4:49 PM, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
>> What about if we just use legacy extensions that would be loaded only on DC?
>> for legacy i mean, why not just have modules / jars from 7.2 in 8.0 distro?
>> that would make it easiest to support, and no extra work.
>> We should just put them in some special place in distro,
>> so it would be obvious that is legacy stuff only DC uses...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Brian Stansberry
>> <brian.stansberry at redhat.com <mailto:brian.stansberry at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      The extension registration logic would have to be altered to not barf
>>      when multiple aliases all try to register the same extensions/
>>      subsystems.
>>
>>      But it probably should still barf if a user tried to do that for some
>>      other reason. So which is happening needs to be clarified.
>>
>>      A way to do that is to use something other than
>>      org.jboss.as.controller.Extension for the ServiceLoader (i.e. first try
>>      ServiceLoader for "LegacyExtension" and then if not there try for
>>      org.jboss.as.controller.Extension.) That's hacky though unless there is
>>      a real difference in the service API between Extension and what these
>>      legacy extensions do. AFAICT though, there is no API difference;
>>      difference is only in impl.
>>
>>      On 3/1/13 4:23 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>       > Rewinding the discussion a bit :)
>>       >
>>       > If we just had one compat module (with N pure aliases), it could
>>      easily
>>       > register all the subsystems for all the modules at that time
>>      (subsystem
>>       > registration is pretty lightweight these days, or so it seems at a
>>       > glance).  If extra subsystems are available as a result of an
>>      extension
>>       > reg I don't see that as harmless.
>>       >
>>       > On 03/01/2013 02:48 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>       >> I'm not sure how the ServiceLoader part would work there. At
>>      least not
>>       >> with what I imagine when I think of an "alias." With some kind
>>      of stub
>>       >> where each has a different
>>       >> META-INF/services/org.jboss.as.controller.Extension file it
>>      could work.
>>       >>
>>       >> On 3/1/13 2:29 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>       >>> Yeah, I was thinking they could just be aliases or stubs though.
>>       >>>
>>       >>> On 03/01/2013 02:22 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>       >>>> In terms of code organization, perhaps. But the way the
>>      extension is
>>       >>>> activated in the HCs and servers is via the module name. So if
>>      you want
>>       >>>> a 7.2 server to be able to run CMP, there is going to have to be a
>>       >>>> module named org.jboss.as.cmp.
>>       >>>>
>>       >>>> On 3/1/13 2:13 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>       >>>>> I wonder - should we retain a skeletal version of each of
>>      these modules?
>>       >>>>>        I was thinking maybe it would be better to maintain
>>      one big
>>       >>>>> "removed-subsystems" or "compat-subsystems" module or
>>      something like
>>       >>>>> that where we can neatly/consistently organize all the model
>>      stuff for
>>       >>>>> these removals.
>>       >>>>>
>>       >>>>> On 03/01/2013 09:39 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>       >>>>>> Thanks Thomas, for raising this and for the JIRA.
>>       >>>>>>
>>       >>>>>> I've outlined what I think is needed for the stub extensions
>>      as a
>>       >>>>>> comment on https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-6656 .
>>       >>>>>>
>>       >>>>>> Can I request that folks hold up on deleting these
>>      subsystems? I think
>>       >>>>>> it will be easier to make these changes and then delete the
>>      unneeded
>>       >>>>>> runtime stuff than it will be to semi-restore from history
>>      and then change.
>>       >>>>>>
>>       >>>>>> The ones that have already been deleted, it's no big deal.
>>       >>>>>>
>>       >>>>>> On 2/28/13 10:35 AM, Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>       >>>>>>> Ok, stub extensions is the obvious alternative to breaking
>>      compatibility. I'll leave this as a future task and create a jira
>>      for it if that's ok with you.
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>> cheers
>>       >>>>>>> --thomas
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 4:22 PM, David M. Lloyd
>>      <david.lloyd at redhat.com <mailto:david.lloyd at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>> On 02/28/2013 05:57 AM, Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>       >>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>       >>>>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>>> related to
>>       >>>>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>>> * [AS7-6612 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-6612>]
>>      Remove JAXR support
>>       >>>>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>>> I'd like to know whether we need to preserve backward
>>      compatibility of
>>       >>>>>>>>> the configuration and if so what should happen if there
>>      is a jaxr config
>>       >>>>>>>>> item? Generally, can AS8 break backward compatibility
>>      with respect to
>>       >>>>>>>>> the config?
>>       >>>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>> Brian points out that we don't have a specific requirement
>>      to maintain
>>       >>>>>>>> compatibility with obsolete subsystems.  I think we could
>>      go ahead with
>>       >>>>>>>> the removal (granted part of the reason I feel this way is
>>      that I've
>>       >>>>>>>> already removed JSR-88...).
>>       >>>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>> Going forward though Kabir suggested that if we do want
>>      to, say, allow
>>       >>>>>>>> 7.x instances to be managed from an 8.x DC, that we should
>>      create "stub"
>>       >>>>>>>> extensions for the removed stuff that only carry and validate
>>       >>>>>>>> configuration but aren't actually supported on 8.x
>>      servers.  This seems
>>       >>>>>>>> like a valid possibility to me.
>>       >>>>>>>> --
>>       >>>>>>>> - DML
>>       >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>       >>>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>       >>>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>      <mailto:jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>       >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>       >>>>>>> Thomas Diesler
>>       >>>>>>> JBoss OSGi Lead
>>       >>>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>       >>>>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>       >>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>       >>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>      <mailto:jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>       >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>       >>>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>
>>       >>>>>>
>>       >>>>>
>>       >>>>>
>>       >>>>
>>       >>>>
>>       >>>
>>       >>>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >
>>       >
>>
>>
>>      --
>>      Brian Stansberry
>>      Principal Software Engineer
>>      JBoss by Red Hat
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>      jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>      https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
- DML


More information about the jboss-as7-dev mailing list