Hi all,
I am Vipul A. M. a Final Year Computer Science Student. I am interested to work on Java API/ABI changes checker proposed by Stanislav Ochotnický over here [1].
I have been having discussions with him for the past 1-2 weeks and getting to know more about the Java Packaging System needs on Fedora{and other, need of all platforms as he says}, and the various pathways for [1]
Till now, I have been trying to understand more how and where the need for [1] is as also the available solutions, and pathways there could be. Me learning from Java API Compliance Checker [2] and others our discussions have come down to,
* Developing a Java based framework for matching results for single jar to that of [1] * Work on build environment to analyse the breakage at CLASSPATH and other relevant levels * Create a comparison based large database for analyzing or suggesting how to proceed ahead. * Generate outputs of comparison{in different forms json,xml,etc} that could be further parsed for other purposes * Generate Web-View of the same
Some of the use-cases suggested for these are as below
Quoting Stanislav
" I envision following use cases: 1. packagers will run this on new release of upstream jar, and old release of upstream jar, compare results and decide how to proceed
2. generate a big database of comparison data for a lot of different versions of various projects/jars where developers can go and see the stuff without actually running the tool themselves
3. [possibly in the far future] runs by automatic quality control tools such as AutoQA that would prevent an update to a package in a released version of distribution that would break compatibility. "
So,
what I would try and target more in {the very small 3 months of} GSoC ,is to first develop a base solution that does proper analysis and breakage detection at singular unit of jar/build environment. After a good base try and handle as many features suggested above, in future.
I would like hear your thoughts/criticisms, to help me identify any other approaches.
Cheers
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Summer_coding_ideas_for_2012#Java_API.2FABI_c... [2] http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Java_API_Compliance_Checker
Vipul A.M. +91-8149-204995
* Vipul Amler vipulnsward@gmail.com [2012-03-23 03:11]:
Hi all,
Hi Vipul,
I am Vipul A. M. a Final Year Computer Science Student. I am interested to work on Java API/ABI changes checker proposed by Stanislav Ochotnický over here [1].
I have been having discussions with him for the past 1-2 weeks and getting to know more about the Java Packaging System needs on Fedora{and other, need of all platforms as he says}, and the various pathways for [1]
Till now, I have been trying to understand more how and where the need for [1] is as also the available solutions, and pathways there could be. Me learning from Java API Compliance Checker [2] and others our discussions have come down to,
I think this is a great idea.
- Developing a Java based framework for matching results for single jar
to that of [1]
- Work on build environment to analyse the breakage at CLASSPATH and
other relevant levels
- Create a comparison based large database for analyzing or suggesting
how to proceed ahead.
Which developers would this target? If this is within the scope of Fedora, it may not be of much use to external developers as Fedora packages may have patches.
If it is for Fedora packagers only, it means that the packager will have to know everything that their package uses, which may not always be the case.
Maintaining the integrity of such a database would also mean integration with Koji so that no one can upload some locally built package with the same version as in Koji and pollute the DB with bad data.
Rather than maintain a database right away, for a first step, how about making it so that the user can provide rpm for package X, rpm version 1 of dependency Y and rpm version 2 of the same dependency, and then find out what X uses from version 1 of Y and make sure it is in version 2? This can be done as a standalone tool and would also lay some of the groundwork for AutoQA in the future.
Please also keep Jigsaw[1] in mind when designing this (just from a design perspective) as it will significantly change how Java handles dependencies.
1: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/
Cheers, Deepak
- Generate outputs of comparison{in different forms json,xml,etc} that
could be further parsed for other purposes
- Generate Web-View of the same
Some of the use-cases suggested for these are as below
Quoting Stanislav
" I envision following use cases:
- packagers will run this on new release of upstream jar, and old
release of upstream jar, compare results and decide how to proceed
- generate a big database of comparison data for a lot of different
versions of various projects/jars where developers can go and see the stuff without actually running the tool themselves
- [possibly in the far future] runs by automatic quality control
tools such as AutoQA that would prevent an update to a package in a released version of distribution that would break compatibility. "
So,
what I would try and target more in {the very small 3 months of} GSoC ,is to first develop a base solution that does proper analysis and breakage detection at singular unit of jar/build environment. After a good base try and handle as many features suggested above, in future.
I would like hear your thoughts/criticisms, to help me identify any other approaches.
Cheers
[1] [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Summer_coding_ideas_for_2012#Java_API .2FABI_changes_checker [2] [2]http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Java_API_Compliance_Checker
Vipul A.M. [3]+91-8149-204995
References
-- java-devel mailing list java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Deepak Bhole dbhole@redhat.com wrote:
- Vipul Amler vipulnsward@gmail.com [2012-03-23 03:11]:
Hi all,
Hi Vipul,
I am Vipul A. M. a Final Year Computer Science Student. I am interested to work on Java API/ABI changes checker proposed by Stanislav Ochotnický over here [1].
I have been having discussions with him for the past 1-2 weeks and getting to know more about the Java Packaging System needs on Fedora{and other, need of all platforms as he says}, and the various pathways for [1]
Till now, I have been trying to understand more how and where the need for [1] is as also the available solutions, and pathways there could be. Me learning from Java API Compliance Checker [2] and others our discussions have come down to,
I think this is a great idea.
- Developing a Java based framework for matching results for single
jar
to that of [1]
- Work on build environment to analyse the breakage at CLASSPATH and
other relevant levels
- Create a comparison based large database for analyzing or suggesting
how to proceed ahead.
Which developers would this target? If this is within the scope of Fedora, it may not be of much use to external developers as Fedora packages may have patches.
This aims at being platform independent, for the main features, i.e. jar/class check. But pkgdiff would be specific to Fedora.
If it is for Fedora packagers only, it means that the packager will have to know everything that their package uses, which may not always be the case.
Maintaining the integrity of such a database would also mean integration with Koji so that no one can upload some locally built package with the same version as in Koji and pollute the DB with bad data.
Rather than maintain a database right away, for a first step, how about making it so that the user can provide rpm for package X, rpm version 1 of dependency Y and rpm version 2 of the same dependency, and then find out what X uses from version 1 of Y and make sure it is in version 2? This can be done as a standalone tool and would also lay some of the groundwork for AutoQA in the future.
Makes sense.
Please also keep Jigsaw[1] in mind when designing this (just from a design perspective) as it will significantly change how Java handles dependencies.
There are some updates. Some time before, Christopher O' Brein released Python-Javaclass [A] that now has switches{for json} and most of the functionality i previously listed.
So, my focus changes more over to feature additions to python-javaclass[A], and addressing breakage issues
Listing a few of the breakage issues here:
1. Refactoring 2. Java-Compilation version ex. jar X, depends on jar Y which was compiled previously and now with some incompatible environments 3.Java VM Versions {Code intended for} 4. Transitive Dependencies in jars A<->B<->C and their incompatibility 5. Scanning the whole hierarchy for class base 6. Change of method signature, which implies same meaning, but has actually changed ex string arrays < - > varags
and many more.
I would now target feature additions: * Address breakages * Package python-java * koji integration/ the DB for jar/rpm versions * Create other switches{xml/html, etc} * Provide a Web-Solution
I would like to invite any important features I should be considering.
Cheers,
Deepak
- Generate outputs of comparison{in different forms json,xml,etc} that
could be further parsed for other purposes
- Generate Web-View of the same
Some of the use-cases suggested for these are as below
Quoting Stanislav
" I envision following use cases:
- packagers will run this on new release of upstream jar, and old
release of upstream jar, compare results and decide how to proceed
- generate a big database of comparison data for a lot of different
versions of various projects/jars where developers can go and see the stuff without actually running the tool themselves
- [possibly in the far future] runs by automatic quality control
tools such as AutoQA that would prevent an update to a package in a released version of distribution that would break compatibility. "
So,
what I would try and target more in {the very small 3 months of} GSoC ,is to first develop a base solution that does proper analysis and breakage detection at singular unit of jar/build environment. After a good base try and handle as many features suggested above, in future.
I would like hear your thoughts/criticisms, to help me identify any other approaches.
Cheers
[1] [1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Summer_coding_ideas_for_2012#Java_API
.2FABI_changes_checker [2] [2]http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Java_API_Compliance_Checker
Vipul A.M. [3]+91-8149-204995
References
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Summer_coding_ideas_for_2012#Java_API.2FABI_c...
- http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Java_API_Compliance_Checker
- tel:%2B91-8149-204995
References:
[A] https://github.com/obriencj/python-javaclass
-- java-devel mailing list java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
Quoting Deepak Bhole (2012-03-26 22:28:01)
- Developing a Java based framework for matching results for single jar
to that of [1]
- Work on build environment to analyse the breakage at CLASSPATH and
other relevant levels
- Create a comparison based large database for analyzing or suggesting
how to proceed ahead.
Which developers would this target? If this is within the scope of Fedora, it may not be of much use to external developers as Fedora packages may have patches.
Since this was my idea (more or less), I'll add my voice (even if a bit late).
This is aimed at packagers (not just fedora ones) and I'd even say upstream developers themselves. If the implementation ever gets to the database phase, I would want to have Maven central artifacts scanned and compared for compatibility version by version.
Let's say upstream releases new version of their library. From a packager POV, what I want to know: what was added/removed/changed. So I'd want to run a tool on old jar, new jar and get a nice output pointing out things that I should be careful about.
Advanced version: I give the tool code that uses the library in question and the tool will point out only thing that are being used by the "application" code. So if some class in a library was removed but the code doesn't use it it will be specified as such. I.e. generally unsafe update, in this case OK.
All of this in a parseable format ready for remixing and including in other tools.
The database would just be aggregation of this basic information.
If it is for Fedora packagers only, it means that the packager will have to know everything that their package uses, which may not always be the case.
This could be additional use case for the tool (which would need additional coding obviously)
Rather than maintain a database right away, for a first step, how about making it so that the user can provide rpm for package X, rpm version 1 of dependency Y and rpm version 2 of the same dependency, and then find out what X uses from version 1 of Y and make sure it is in version 2? This can be done as a standalone tool and would also lay some of the groundwork for AutoQA in the future.
I'd rather go the unix way of KISS and wouldn't care even about RPMs at all.
What we need is to compare two CLASSPATH sets. What additions/removals/modifications are there between them, what possible problems could developers moving from jars on one classpath to another encounter (overriding new fields in supertype, perhaps some function modification etc, method removal etc.)
That would be just a simple wrapper away from comparing of RPMs but would still not be tied to RPMs.
Please also keep Jigsaw[1] in mind when designing this (just from a design perspective) as it will significantly change how Java handles dependencies.
I would like to keep this simple and shooting a moving target such as jigsaw would be kinda hard. We need to have some deliverable for GSoC ~3 months from the start of the project. That is including the documentation, probably web page and community engagement. Sure, nice design is important but shooting a moving target would not help...
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Deepak Bhole -
Stanislav Ochotnicky -
Vipul Amler