Re: [Findbugs-core] toward ASM 4.0?

Not sure I have a vote, but I'm also against a change right now.  Very disruptive (trying to move to open source project.)

On 2011-08-25, at 9:57 AM, Zeeb, Jeffrey wrote:

> If we were voting, I would be against the switch to abstract classes right now too.  It seems like a large upheaval at a late point in the release cycle.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:21 AM
> To: Rémi Forax
> Cc: Brian Goetz; Bill Pugh; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zeeb, Jeffrey; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [asm] Re: Re: [Findbugs-core] toward ASM 4.0?
> 
> Rémi Forax wrote:
>> What you propose will impact the size of the jars and the execution time,
>> so I want to explore the different options and not to rush and release
>> something that will be not used.
> 
> The change to abstract classes will have no impact on jar size and performance in the first release where it will be applied (because then no compatibility checking code will be needed). In future versions, the code ensuring backward compatibility will increase jar size, yes, and may slightly degrade performance, but then we can release several jars as you propose (from the same source code).
> 
> ---------
> 
> If I summarize, Remi and Brian are against releasing the "abstract classes" approach right now, but Eugene, Andrei and me vote for it (Eugene: "Also agree with you on no reasons to postpone this change."; Andrei: "I personally would even vote for releasing the Eric's "abstract classes" proposal as ASM 4.0 RC2"). Eliot Moss finds that this is "An interesting approach. It seems reasonable to me.". Bill Pugh says that, for FindBugs, "switching to abstract classes in ASM should be transparent". Finally, Jeffrey Zeeb is not against this change, if it does not postpone the release of Java 7 support too much.
> 
> I count 2 against vs. 6 for or "not against". I think the pros and cons of each option have now been clearly exposed, and that we can take a decision. I think Andrei's proposal to release a 4.0 RC2 soon is a good option. I propose to do that, while keeping the "objectweb" package name (forever). So I will now work on this. I target a 4.0 RC2 before September 18.
> 
> Eric
> 
> -- 
> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list.
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
> For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
> OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws

-- 
You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws