[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openejb-development
Subject:    Re: woodstox and jackson?
From:       David Blevins <david.blevins () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-01-14 20:43:34
Message-ID: 1FF71DB9-3E96-41D9-A4F1-370E9D96793D () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Portable, yes.

Generated, yes.  So safe to edit, not really.  Ideally we'd figure out why it didn't \
generate correctly and fix there.

I saw you made a couple fixes to the generated source.  Pragmatically, if we can add \
a test case to the container/openejb-jee-accessors/ for the fixes that would give us \
at least some lasting awareness that something certain fixes need to be made.  That's \
good enough protection for now.  We can migrate the fix to the proper place later.

When we generate again and overwrite the hand-made fixes, we'll have the test cases \
to ensure we haven't lost anything.


-David

On Jan 13, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it portable?
> 
> Was accessor module generated (= are the changes we do to it safe?)
> Le 13 janv. 2013 23:37, "David Blevins" <david.blevins@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > On Jan 13, 2013, at 2:06 PM, David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Jan 13, 2013, at 1:56 PM, David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Jan 13, 2013, at 12:32 PM, David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Jan 13, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > two questions about next release and dependencies:
> > > > > > 1) David reworked our JavaEE descriptors parsing to use sxc. In this
> > > > > > refactoring we now use woodstox under the stax api (was it mandatory?)
> > > > > > -> do we want it? if yes do we shade it or simply skip it in the
> > > > > > classloader to avoid classloader issues if an app provides it? (+
> > 500ko
> > > > > > about)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Digging in the SXC code to see how tightly woodstox is integrated.
> > > > 
> > > > Interestingly enough the built-in vm impl appears to be faster on the
> > unmarshal.  Getting encoding errors on the marshal though.  Digging into it.
> > > 
> > > Never mind, my IDE classpath as 3 copies of woodstocks, 2 of jettison
> > and of course the built-in vm version (intellij's maven support doesn't
> > really manage the classpath like maven does).  Let me clean up and try
> > again.
> > 
> > Confirmed.  The com.sun.* impl is indeed faster for our purposes than
> > Woodstox.  Yanked Woodstox from the openejb-jee-accessors module.
> > 
> > 
> > -David
> > 
> > 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]