You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> on 2008/11/10 21:12:55 UTC
Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA. OpenJPA
builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move forward
to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs. Like EJB
3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent updates
to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA
2.0.
IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo. Ideally, the
Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with the
OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern with that
approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
repository. OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden on the
Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to
temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current Geronimo
spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major revisions
and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in the
Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the
spec jar provided by Geronimo.
Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
-Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Jeremias Maerki-2 <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
FYI, I ran into a problem today trying to use geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.1.1.jar
in an OSGi context together with Spring ORM: The spec JAR exports the
javax.xml.persistence package as version 3.0 but Spring expects "[1.0.0,
2.0.0)". I guess I'll have to patch the spec JAR or use another one from
somewhere. IMO, exporting version 3.0 is incorrect.
djencks wrote:
>
> Before doing this I'd like to have a plan for what to do in a couple
> years when jpa 3.0 is proposed..... how will we avoid a collision?
> the existing geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-<version>.jar jars will still be
> out there.
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Updating-the-JPA-spec-jar-for-JPA-2.0-tp20427224s134p20857980.html
Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:42 PM, Michael Dick wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM, David Jencks
> <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>
>>> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
>>>> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA.
>>>> OpenJPA
>>>> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
>>>> forward
>>>> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs.
>>>> Like EJB
>>>> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
>>>> updates
>>>> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
>>>> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs
>>>> to JPA
>>>> 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not
>>> have
>>> the proper license.
>>>
>>> Ideally, the
>>>> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development,
>>>> with
>>>> the
>>>> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern
>>>> with
>>>> that
>>>> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the
>>>> Geronimo
>>>> repository.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
>>>
>>> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
>>>> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a
>>>> burden on the
>>>> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck
>>>> for
>>>> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA
>>>> project to
>>>> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
>>>> Geronimo
>>>> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major
>>>> revisions
>>>> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be
>>>> published in
>>>> the
>>>> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others)
>>>> using the
>>>> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one
>>> or three
>>> OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of
>>> the
>>> repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make
>>> sure that
>>> we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward.
>>>
>>
>> Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability?
>> I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an
>> actual
>> problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the
>> 2.0
>> classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with
>> changing
>> svn permissions. I have no particular objection to doing this
>> but.... I'm
>> happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn
>> permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc
>> discussions, etc
>> etc.
>
>
> I agree. There may be a fair number of changes at the beginning but it
> *should* calm down when the spec finalizes (famous last words).
>
> When / if it becomes a problem (ie David is tired of us bothering
> him :-) )
> we can always fork a copy to the OpenJPA project with the intent of
> merging
> back when it's in less of a state of flux (or on a regular basis).
>
>
>> I've started off with
>>
>> svn cp
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec
>>
>> and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set
>> the maven
>> version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen
>> require
>> that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I didn't check
>> the jpa
>> spec specificially).
>>
>>
>> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared
>> to be
>> part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of
>> 3.0. Any
>> suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated.
>>
>
> I think the ideal fix is to copy geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec to
> geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec and announce that we're going to remove
> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec at some point in the future. There's some
> precedent
> for moving a maven artifact - moving ant:ant to org.apache.ant:ant
> comes to
> mind, so it might be permissable.
>
> I don't know if there's a good way to properly announce it to users
> (potentially a superset of say geronimo-users) , I suspect we can
> learn
> from what the ant team did and communicate the change in the same way.
There's some kind of relocation pom.... I don't know that it's ever
been used for anything other than changing maven 1 names to maven 2
names, like in the ant example you show.
Before doing this I'd like to have a plan for what to do in a couple
years when jpa 3.0 is proposed..... how will we avoid a collision?
the existing geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-<version>.jar jars will still be
out there.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> -mike
>
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:42 PM, Michael Dick wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM, David Jencks
> <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>
>>> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
>>>> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA.
>>>> OpenJPA
>>>> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
>>>> forward
>>>> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs.
>>>> Like EJB
>>>> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
>>>> updates
>>>> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
>>>> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs
>>>> to JPA
>>>> 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not
>>> have
>>> the proper license.
>>>
>>> Ideally, the
>>>> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development,
>>>> with
>>>> the
>>>> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern
>>>> with
>>>> that
>>>> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the
>>>> Geronimo
>>>> repository.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
>>>
>>> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
>>>> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a
>>>> burden on the
>>>> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck
>>>> for
>>>> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA
>>>> project to
>>>> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
>>>> Geronimo
>>>> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major
>>>> revisions
>>>> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be
>>>> published in
>>>> the
>>>> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others)
>>>> using the
>>>> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one
>>> or three
>>> OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of
>>> the
>>> repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make
>>> sure that
>>> we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward.
>>>
>>
>> Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability?
>> I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an
>> actual
>> problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the
>> 2.0
>> classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with
>> changing
>> svn permissions. I have no particular objection to doing this
>> but.... I'm
>> happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn
>> permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc
>> discussions, etc
>> etc.
>
>
> I agree. There may be a fair number of changes at the beginning but it
> *should* calm down when the spec finalizes (famous last words).
>
> When / if it becomes a problem (ie David is tired of us bothering
> him :-) )
> we can always fork a copy to the OpenJPA project with the intent of
> merging
> back when it's in less of a state of flux (or on a regular basis).
>
>
>> I've started off with
>>
>> svn cp
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec
>>
>> and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set
>> the maven
>> version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen
>> require
>> that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I didn't check
>> the jpa
>> spec specificially).
>>
>>
>> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared
>> to be
>> part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of
>> 3.0. Any
>> suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated.
>>
>
> I think the ideal fix is to copy geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec to
> geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec and announce that we're going to remove
> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec at some point in the future. There's some
> precedent
> for moving a maven artifact - moving ant:ant to org.apache.ant:ant
> comes to
> mind, so it might be permissable.
>
> I don't know if there's a good way to properly announce it to users
> (potentially a superset of say geronimo-users) , I suspect we can
> learn
> from what the ant team did and communicate the change in the same way.
There's some kind of relocation pom.... I don't know that it's ever
been used for anything other than changing maven 1 names to maven 2
names, like in the ant example you show.
Before doing this I'd like to have a plan for what to do in a couple
years when jpa 3.0 is proposed..... how will we avoid a collision?
the existing geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-<version>.jar jars will still be
out there.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> -mike
>
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>
>> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
>>> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA. OpenJPA
>>> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
>>> forward
>>> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs. Like EJB
>>> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
>>> updates
>>> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
>>> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA
>>> 2.0.
>>>
>>> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not have
>> the proper license.
>>
>> Ideally, the
>>> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with
>>> the
>>> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern with
>>> that
>>> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
>>> repository.
>>>
>>
>> Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
>>
>> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
>>> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden on the
>>> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
>>> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to
>>> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
>>> Geronimo
>>> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major revisions
>>> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in
>>> the
>>> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the
>>> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or three
>> OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of the
>> repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make sure that
>> we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward.
>>
>
> Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability?
> I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an actual
> problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the 2.0
> classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with changing
> svn permissions. I have no particular objection to doing this but.... I'm
> happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn
> permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc
> etc.
I agree. There may be a fair number of changes at the beginning but it
*should* calm down when the spec finalizes (famous last words).
When / if it becomes a problem (ie David is tired of us bothering him :-) )
we can always fork a copy to the OpenJPA project with the intent of merging
back when it's in less of a state of flux (or on a regular basis).
> I've started off with
>
> svn cp
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec
>
> and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the maven
> version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen require
> that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I didn't check the jpa
> spec specificially).
>
>
> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be
> part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any
> suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated.
>
I think the ideal fix is to copy geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec to
geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec and announce that we're going to remove
geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec at some point in the future. There's some precedent
for moving a maven artifact - moving ant:ant to org.apache.ant:ant comes to
mind, so it might be permissable.
I don't know if there's a good way to properly announce it to users
(potentially a superset of say geronimo-users) , I suspect we can learn
from what the ant team did and communicate the change in the same way.
Best Regards,
-mike
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>>>
>>> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>
>> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
>>> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA. OpenJPA
>>> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
>>> forward
>>> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs. Like EJB
>>> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
>>> updates
>>> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
>>> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA
>>> 2.0.
>>>
>>> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not have
>> the proper license.
>>
>> Ideally, the
>>> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with
>>> the
>>> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern with
>>> that
>>> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
>>> repository.
>>>
>>
>> Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
>>
>> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
>>> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden on the
>>> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
>>> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to
>>> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
>>> Geronimo
>>> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major revisions
>>> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in
>>> the
>>> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the
>>> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or three
>> OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of the
>> repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make sure that
>> we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward.
>>
>
> Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability?
> I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an actual
> problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the 2.0
> classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with changing
> svn permissions. I have no particular objection to doing this but.... I'm
> happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn
> permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc
> etc.
I agree. There may be a fair number of changes at the beginning but it
*should* calm down when the spec finalizes (famous last words).
When / if it becomes a problem (ie David is tired of us bothering him :-) )
we can always fork a copy to the OpenJPA project with the intent of merging
back when it's in less of a state of flux (or on a regular basis).
> I've started off with
>
> svn cp
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec
>
> and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the maven
> version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen require
> that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I didn't check the jpa
> spec specificially).
>
>
> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be
> part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any
> suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated.
>
I think the ideal fix is to copy geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec to
geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec and announce that we're going to remove
geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec at some point in the future. There's some precedent
for moving a maven artifact - moving ant:ant to org.apache.ant:ant comes to
mind, so it might be permissable.
I don't know if there's a good way to properly announce it to users
(potentially a superset of say geronimo-users) , I suspect we can learn
from what the ant team did and communicate the change in the same way.
Best Regards,
-mike
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>>>
>>> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Fernando Padilla <fe...@alum.mit.edu>.
right. When we do get to Jpa-3.0, we would just publish against a
version number that is late than what is currently there.. :)
And the reason you're seeing two directories for geronimo-spec is
probably because they changed the groupId of the artifacts. For
whatever reason.
So you might see older artifacts since Maven Central Repository never
removes anything, ever. So expecting this whenever I start using a
dependency I search for it in mvnrepository.com to see if it might exist
in different groupId/artifactIds. So if it happens to show up more than
once, and I try to look for the one that looks to be actively maintained..
Mark Struberg wrote:
> --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec
>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec
>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do
>> about this would be appreciated.
>
>
> Do we really need to change anything?
>
> Imho the current
> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> with a
> <version> 1.0
> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;)
> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA.
>
> So I'd suggest to simply use
> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> and we're done.
>
> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online:
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>
> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway.
>
> So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
Sounds great. I'll open a JIRA. Thanks!
-Jeremy
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
> I don't think there's any argument about the artifactId of
> geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec and version of 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT for the new work, so as
> soon as you supply a patch I can apply it and push a snapshot. I have no
> objection to the other ideas but they won't make any immediate difference to
> anything. I thought we could wait a bit for other comments.
>
> If you open a geronimo jira and assign it to me for patches I'll be
> reminded on each new patch :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
> Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable?
> We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact
> published to the maven repo asap.
> -Jeremy
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to
>> handle commits.
>> The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation
>> of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but
>> may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0
>> spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to
>> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact.
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>>>
>>> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
>>> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
>>> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know
>>> about ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
>>> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>>
>>> > Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
>>> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
>>> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
>>> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
>>> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
>>> > <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the
>>> > jpa 1.0 spec
>>> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
>>> > gave it a spec
>>> > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
>>> > what to do
>>> > >>> about this would be appreciated.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Imho the current
>>> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>>> > >> with a
>>> > >> <version> 1.0
>>> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
>>> > doesn't hinder us ;)
>>> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
>>> > do not have any problem
>>> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
>>> > groupId since this references EJB
>>> > >> and not JPA.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
>>> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>> > >> and we're done.
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>>> > >
>>> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
>>> > had gotten to the 3.0
>>> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>>> > >
>>> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
>>> > Review Draft stage)
>>> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
>>> > seems completely
>>> > > correct.
>>> > >
>>> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
>>> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>>> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
>>> > if we change the artifact
>>> > > id or group id (again).
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
>>> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
>>> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
>>> > specs though. I have
>>> > no strong feelings either way though.
>>> >
>>> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
>>> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
>>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
>>> > finalizes
>>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
>>> >
>>> > -mike
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Craig
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
>>> > the fact, that there are 2
>>> > >> specs online:
>>> > >>
>>> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>>> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
>>> > and this doesn't contain the
>>> > >> jpa spec anyway.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
>>> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> txs and LieGrue,
>>> > >> strub
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > > Craig L Russell
>>> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
>>> > http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
Sounds great. I'll open a JIRA. Thanks!
-Jeremy
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
> I don't think there's any argument about the artifactId of
> geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec and version of 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT for the new work, so as
> soon as you supply a patch I can apply it and push a snapshot. I have no
> objection to the other ideas but they won't make any immediate difference to
> anything. I thought we could wait a bit for other comments.
>
> If you open a geronimo jira and assign it to me for patches I'll be
> reminded on each new patch :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
> Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable?
> We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact
> published to the maven repo asap.
> -Jeremy
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to
>> handle commits.
>> The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation
>> of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but
>> may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0
>> spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to
>> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact.
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>>>
>>> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
>>> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
>>> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know
>>> about ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
>>> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>>
>>> > Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
>>> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
>>> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
>>> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
>>> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
>>> > <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the
>>> > jpa 1.0 spec
>>> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
>>> > gave it a spec
>>> > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
>>> > what to do
>>> > >>> about this would be appreciated.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Imho the current
>>> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>>> > >> with a
>>> > >> <version> 1.0
>>> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
>>> > doesn't hinder us ;)
>>> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
>>> > do not have any problem
>>> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
>>> > groupId since this references EJB
>>> > >> and not JPA.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
>>> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>> > >> and we're done.
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>>> > >
>>> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
>>> > had gotten to the 3.0
>>> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>>> > >
>>> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
>>> > Review Draft stage)
>>> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
>>> > seems completely
>>> > > correct.
>>> > >
>>> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
>>> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>>> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
>>> > if we change the artifact
>>> > > id or group id (again).
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
>>> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
>>> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
>>> > specs though. I have
>>> > no strong feelings either way though.
>>> >
>>> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
>>> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
>>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
>>> > finalizes
>>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
>>> >
>>> > -mike
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Craig
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
>>> > the fact, that there are 2
>>> > >> specs online:
>>> > >>
>>> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>>> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
>>> > and this doesn't contain the
>>> > >> jpa spec anyway.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
>>> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> txs and LieGrue,
>>> > >> strub
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > > Craig L Russell
>>> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
>>> > http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Hi Jeremy,
I don't think there's any argument about the artifactId of geronimo-
jpa_2.0_spec and version of 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT for the new work, so as
soon as you supply a patch I can apply it and push a snapshot. I have
no objection to the other ideas but they won't make any immediate
difference to anything. I thought we could wait a bit for other
comments.
If you open a geronimo jira and assign it to me for patches I'll be
reminded on each new patch :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/
> doable? We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an
> artifact published to the maven repo asap.
>
> -Jeremy
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your
> willingness to handle commits.
>
> The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or
> derivation of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is
> not necessary, but may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use
> the new 2.0 repo for 2.0 spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-
> SNAPSHOT version to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current
> 1.0 version intact.
>
> -Jeremy
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>
> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to
> know about ;)
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>
>
> --- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>
> > Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
> > <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >
> > > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> > >>
> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the
> > jpa 1.0 spec
> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
> > gave it a spec
> > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
> > what to do
> > >>> about this would be appreciated.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
> > >>
> > >> Imho the current
> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > >> with a
> > >> <version> 1.0
> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
> > doesn't hinder us ;)
> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
> > do not have any problem
> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
> > groupId since this references EJB
> > >> and not JPA.
> > >>
> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > >> and we're done.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
> > >
> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
> > had gotten to the 3.0
> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
> > >
> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
> > Review Draft stage)
> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
> > seems completely
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
> > if we change the artifact
> > > id or group id (again).
> > >
> >
> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
> > specs though. I have
> > no strong feelings either way though.
> >
> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
> > finalizes
> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
> >
> > -mike
> >
> >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
> > the fact, that there are 2
> > >> specs online:
> > >>
> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
> > >>
> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
> > and this doesn't contain the
> > >> jpa spec anyway.
> > >>
> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
> > >>
> > >> txs and LieGrue,
> > >> strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Craig L Russell
> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> > http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable?
We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact
published to the maven repo asap.
-Jeremy
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to
> handle commits.
> The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation
> of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but
> may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0
> spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to
> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact.
> -Jeremy
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>>
>> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
>> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
>> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know
>> about ;)
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
>> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>>
>>
>> --- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>
>> > Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
>> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
>> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
>> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
>> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
>> > <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> > >
>> > > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>> > >>
>> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the
>> > jpa 1.0 spec
>> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
>> > gave it a spec
>> > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
>> > what to do
>> > >>> about this would be appreciated.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
>> > >>
>> > >> Imho the current
>> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>> > >> with a
>> > >> <version> 1.0
>> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
>> > doesn't hinder us ;)
>> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
>> > do not have any problem
>> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
>> > groupId since this references EJB
>> > >> and not JPA.
>> > >>
>> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
>> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> > >> and we're done.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>> > >
>> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
>> > had gotten to the 3.0
>> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>> > >
>> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
>> > Review Draft stage)
>> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
>> > seems completely
>> > > correct.
>> > >
>> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
>> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
>> > if we change the artifact
>> > > id or group id (again).
>> > >
>> >
>> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
>> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
>> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
>> > specs though. I have
>> > no strong feelings either way though.
>> >
>> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
>> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
>> > finalizes
>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
>> >
>> > -mike
>> >
>> >
>> > > Craig
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
>> > the fact, that there are 2
>> > >> specs online:
>> > >>
>> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>> > >>
>> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
>> > and this doesn't contain the
>> > >> jpa spec anyway.
>> > >>
>> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
>> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
>> > >>
>> > >> txs and LieGrue,
>> > >> strub
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > > Craig L Russell
>> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
>> > http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable?
We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact
published to the maven repo asap.
-Jeremy
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to
> handle commits.
> The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation
> of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but
> may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0
> spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to
> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact.
> -Jeremy
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>>
>> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
>> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
>> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know
>> about ;)
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
>> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>>
>>
>> --- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>
>> > Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
>> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
>> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
>> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
>> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
>> > <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> > >
>> > > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>> > >>
>> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the
>> > jpa 1.0 spec
>> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
>> > gave it a spec
>> > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
>> > what to do
>> > >>> about this would be appreciated.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
>> > >>
>> > >> Imho the current
>> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>> > >> with a
>> > >> <version> 1.0
>> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
>> > doesn't hinder us ;)
>> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
>> > do not have any problem
>> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
>> > groupId since this references EJB
>> > >> and not JPA.
>> > >>
>> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
>> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> > >> and we're done.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>> > >
>> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
>> > had gotten to the 3.0
>> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>> > >
>> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
>> > Review Draft stage)
>> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
>> > seems completely
>> > > correct.
>> > >
>> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
>> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
>> > if we change the artifact
>> > > id or group id (again).
>> > >
>> >
>> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
>> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
>> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
>> > specs though. I have
>> > no strong feelings either way though.
>> >
>> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
>> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
>> > finalizes
>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
>> >
>> > -mike
>> >
>> >
>> > > Craig
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
>> > the fact, that there are 2
>> > >> specs online:
>> > >>
>> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>> > >>
>> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
>> > and this doesn't contain the
>> > >> jpa spec anyway.
>> > >>
>> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
>> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
>> > >>
>> > >> txs and LieGrue,
>> > >> strub
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > > Craig L Russell
>> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
>> > http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to
handle commits.
The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation
of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but
may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0
spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to
geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact.
-Jeremy
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>
> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know
> about ;)
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>
>
> --- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>
> > Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
> > <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >
> > > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> > >>
> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the
> > jpa 1.0 spec
> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
> > gave it a spec
> > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
> > what to do
> > >>> about this would be appreciated.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
> > >>
> > >> Imho the current
> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > >> with a
> > >> <version> 1.0
> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
> > doesn't hinder us ;)
> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
> > do not have any problem
> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
> > groupId since this references EJB
> > >> and not JPA.
> > >>
> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > >> and we're done.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
> > >
> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
> > had gotten to the 3.0
> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
> > >
> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
> > Review Draft stage)
> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
> > seems completely
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
> > if we change the artifact
> > > id or group id (again).
> > >
> >
> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
> > specs though. I have
> > no strong feelings either way though.
> >
> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
> > finalizes
> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
> >
> > -mike
> >
> >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
> > the fact, that there are 2
> > >> specs online:
> > >>
> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
> > >>
> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
> > and this doesn't contain the
> > >> jpa spec anyway.
> > >>
> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
> > >>
> > >> txs and LieGrue,
> > >> strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Craig L Russell
> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> > http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to
handle commits.
The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation
of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but
may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0
spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to
geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact.
-Jeremy
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>
> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know
> about ;)
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>
>
> --- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>
> > Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
> > <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >
> > > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> > >>
> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the
> > jpa 1.0 spec
> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
> > gave it a spec
> > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
> > what to do
> > >>> about this would be appreciated.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
> > >>
> > >> Imho the current
> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > >> with a
> > >> <version> 1.0
> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
> > doesn't hinder us ;)
> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
> > do not have any problem
> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
> > groupId since this references EJB
> > >> and not JPA.
> > >>
> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > >> and we're done.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
> > >
> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
> > had gotten to the 3.0
> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
> > >
> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
> > Review Draft stage)
> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
> > seems completely
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
> > if we change the artifact
> > > id or group id (again).
> > >
> >
> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
> > specs though. I have
> > no strong feelings either way though.
> >
> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
> > finalizes
> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
> >
> > -mike
> >
> >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
> > the fact, that there are 2
> > >> specs online:
> > >>
> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
> > >>
> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
> > and this doesn't contain the
> > >> jpa spec anyway.
> > >>
> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
> > >>
> > >> txs and LieGrue,
> > >> strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Craig L Russell
> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> > http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know about ;)
LieGrue,
strub
[1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
[2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
--- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
> An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
> <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >
> > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> >>
> >>> This points out the possible problem that the
> jpa 1.0 spec
> >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
> gave it a spec
> >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
> what to do
> >>> about this would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do we really need to change anything?
> >>
> >> Imho the current
> >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> >> with a
> >> <version> 1.0
> >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
> doesn't hinder us ;)
> >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
> do not have any problem
> >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
> groupId since this references EJB
> >> and not JPA.
> >>
> >> So I'd suggest to simply use
> >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> >> and we're done.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
> >
> > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
> had gotten to the 3.0
> > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
> >
> > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
> Review Draft stage)
> > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
> seems completely
> > correct.
> >
> > So even though it's confusing because of the
> original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
> if we change the artifact
> > id or group id (again).
> >
>
> That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
> geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
> doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
> specs though. I have
> no strong feelings either way though.
>
> We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
> 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
> 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
> finalizes
> 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
>
> -mike
>
>
> > Craig
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
> the fact, that there are 2
> >> specs online:
> >>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
> >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
> >>
> >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
> and this doesn't contain the
> >> jpa spec anyway.
> >>
> >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
> (I'm not a geronimized one)?
> >>
> >> txs and LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Craig L Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know about ;)
LieGrue,
strub
[1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
[2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
--- Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> Von: Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
> An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
> <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >
> > --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> >>
> >>> This points out the possible problem that the
> jpa 1.0 spec
> >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
> gave it a spec
> >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about
> what to do
> >>> about this would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do we really need to change anything?
> >>
> >> Imho the current
> >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> >> with a
> >> <version> 1.0
> >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
> doesn't hinder us ;)
> >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
> do not have any problem
> >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
> groupId since this references EJB
> >> and not JPA.
> >>
> >> So I'd suggest to simply use
> >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> >> and we're done.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
> >
> > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
> had gotten to the 3.0
> > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
> >
> > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
> Review Draft stage)
> > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
> seems completely
> > correct.
> >
> > So even though it's confusing because of the
> original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
> if we change the artifact
> > id or group id (again).
> >
>
> That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
> geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
> doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
> specs though. I have
> no strong feelings either way though.
>
> We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
> 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
> 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
> finalizes
> 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
>
> -mike
>
>
> > Craig
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
> the fact, that there are 2
> >> specs online:
> >>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
> >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
> >>
> >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
> and this doesn't contain the
> >> jpa spec anyway.
> >>
> >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
> (I'm not a geronimized one)?
> >>
> >> txs and LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Craig L Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>
>>> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec
>>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec
>>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do
>>> about this would be appreciated.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do we really need to change anything?
>>
>> Imho the current
>> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>> with a
>> <version> 1.0
>> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;)
>> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem
>> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB
>> and not JPA.
>>
>> So I'd suggest to simply use
>> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> and we're done.
>>
>
> Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>
> The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0
> level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>
> The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage)
> is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely
> correct.
>
> So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact
> id or group id (again).
>
That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo specs though. I have
no strong feelings either way though.
We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec finalizes
2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
-mike
> Craig
>
>>
>>
>> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2
>> specs online:
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>>
>> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the
>> jpa spec anyway.
>>
>> So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)?
>>
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec
>>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec
>>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do
>>> about this would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>> Do we really need to change anything?
>>
>> Imho the current
>> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>> with a
>> <version> 1.0
>> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;)
>> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any
>> problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since
>> this references EJB and not JPA.
>>
>> So I'd suggest to simply use
>> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> and we're done.
>
> Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>
> The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to
> the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>
> The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft
> stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems
> completely correct.
>
> So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-
> jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we
> change the artifact id or group id (again).
Well, that's not how the geronimo spec naming scheme works :-/
We have the problem of two more or less independent version
schemes.... the spec version and the geronimo release version. We
decided to put the spec version in the maven artifact id.
geronimo-<spec-name>_<spec-version_spec
and the geronimo release version in the maven version.
So
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec</artifactId>
<version>2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT</version>
would be a 2.0 release of the ejb 3.0/jpa 1.0 spec.
Without agreeing to a basic change in the naming convention I don't
think there's much alternative to having
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec</artifactId>
<version>1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT</version>
for the jpa 2 specs we're proposing now, the question is what to do
about the existing and future jars.
>
>
> Craig
>>
>>
>> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there
>> are 2 specs online:
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>>
>> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't
>> contain the jpa spec anyway.
>>
>> So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized
>> one)?
stuff under geronimo-spec is from the antedeluvian maven 1/geronimo
1.x spec releases and is many years old. It gets into the maven2
repository by some kind of magic.
stuff under o.a.g.specs are the specs built with maven2, including all
the javaee 5 specs. Most or all of them now also contain osgi
metadata along with occasional bug fixes.
thanks
david jencks
>>
>>
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>
>>> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec
>>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec
>>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do
>>> about this would be appreciated.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do we really need to change anything?
>>
>> Imho the current
>> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>> with a
>> <version> 1.0
>> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;)
>> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem
>> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB
>> and not JPA.
>>
>> So I'd suggest to simply use
>> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> and we're done.
>>
>
> Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>
> The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0
> level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>
> The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage)
> is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely
> correct.
>
> So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact
> id or group id (again).
>
That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo specs though. I have
no strong feelings either way though.
We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec finalizes
2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
-mike
> Craig
>
>>
>>
>> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2
>> specs online:
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>>
>> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the
>> jpa spec anyway.
>>
>> So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)?
>>
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec
>>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec
>>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do
>>> about this would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>> Do we really need to change anything?
>>
>> Imho the current
>> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>> with a
>> <version> 1.0
>> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;)
>> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any
>> problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since
>> this references EJB and not JPA.
>>
>> So I'd suggest to simply use
>> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> and we're done.
>
> Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>
> The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to
> the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>
> The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft
> stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems
> completely correct.
>
> So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-
> jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we
> change the artifact id or group id (again).
Well, that's not how the geronimo spec naming scheme works :-/
We have the problem of two more or less independent version
schemes.... the spec version and the geronimo release version. We
decided to put the spec version in the maven artifact id.
geronimo-<spec-name>_<spec-version_spec
and the geronimo release version in the maven version.
So
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec</artifactId>
<version>2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT</version>
would be a 2.0 release of the ejb 3.0/jpa 1.0 spec.
Without agreeing to a basic change in the naming convention I don't
think there's much alternative to having
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec</artifactId>
<version>1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT</version>
for the jpa 2 specs we're proposing now, the question is what to do
about the existing and future jars.
>
>
> Craig
>>
>>
>> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there
>> are 2 specs online:
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>>
>> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't
>> contain the jpa spec anyway.
>>
>> So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized
>> one)?
stuff under geronimo-spec is from the antedeluvian maven 1/geronimo
1.x spec releases and is many years old. It gets into the maven2
repository by some kind of magic.
stuff under o.a.g.specs are the specs built with maven2, including all
the javaee 5 specs. Most or all of them now also contain osgi
metadata along with occasional bug fixes.
thanks
david jencks
>>
>>
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec
>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec
>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do
>> about this would be appreciated.
>
>
> Do we really need to change anything?
>
> Imho the current
> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> with a
> <version> 1.0
> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;)
> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any
> problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since
> this references EJB and not JPA.
>
> So I'd suggest to simply use
> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> and we're done.
Yes, this would be the thing to do.
The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the
3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft
stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems
completely correct.
So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-
jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we
change the artifact id or group id (again).
Craig
>
>
> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there
> are 2 specs online:
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>
> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't
> contain the jpa spec anyway.
>
> So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized
> one)?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
--- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec
> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec
> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do
> about this would be appreciated.
Do we really need to change anything?
Imho the current
<artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
with a
<version> 1.0
is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;)
The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA.
So I'd suggest to simply use
<version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
and we're done.
Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online:
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway.
So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)?
txs and LieGrue,
strub
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
>> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
>> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA.
>> OpenJPA
>> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
>> forward
>> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs.
>> Like EJB
>> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
>> updates
>> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
>> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs
>> to JPA
>> 2.0.
>>
>> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
>
> +1
>
> Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not
> have the proper license.
>
>> Ideally, the
>> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development,
>> with the
>> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern
>> with that
>> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
>> repository.
>
> Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
>
>> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
>> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden
>> on the
>> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
>> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA
>> project to
>> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
>> Geronimo
>> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major
>> revisions
>> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published
>> in the
>> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others)
>> using the
>> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
>
> Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or
> three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the
> portion of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable
> tests to make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this
> should be straightforward.
Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before
stability? I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it
turns into an actual problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for
whoever writes the 2.0 classes but it might end up being quicker than
trying to deal with changing svn permissions. I have no particular
objection to doing this but.... I'm happy to apply patches quickly but
have no clue what to do about svn permissions and worry it might
involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc etc.
I've started off with
svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec
and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the
maven version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've
seen require that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I
didn't check the jpa spec specificially).
This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to
be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of
3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> Craig
>>
>> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>>
>> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
>> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
>> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA.
>> OpenJPA
>> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
>> forward
>> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs.
>> Like EJB
>> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
>> updates
>> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
>> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs
>> to JPA
>> 2.0.
>>
>> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
>
> +1
>
> Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not
> have the proper license.
>
>> Ideally, the
>> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development,
>> with the
>> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern
>> with that
>> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
>> repository.
>
> Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
>
>> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
>> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden
>> on the
>> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
>> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA
>> project to
>> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
>> Geronimo
>> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major
>> revisions
>> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published
>> in the
>> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others)
>> using the
>> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
>
> Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or
> three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the
> portion of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable
> tests to make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this
> should be straightforward.
Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before
stability? I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it
turns into an actual problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for
whoever writes the 2.0 classes but it might end up being quicker than
trying to deal with changing svn permissions. I have no particular
objection to doing this but.... I'm happy to apply patches quickly but
have no clue what to do about svn permissions and worry it might
involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc etc.
I've started off with
svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec
and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the
maven version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've
seen require that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I
didn't check the jpa spec specificially).
This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to
be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of
3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> Craig
>>
>> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>>
>> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jeremy,
On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA.
> OpenJPA
> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
> forward
> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs.
> Like EJB
> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
> updates
> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs to
> JPA
> 2.0.
>
> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
+1
Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not
have the proper license.
> Ideally, the
> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development,
> with the
> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern
> with that
> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
> repository.
Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden
> on the
> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA
> project to
> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
> Geronimo
> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major
> revisions
> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published
> in the
> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using
> the
> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or
three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion
of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to
make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be
straightforward.
Craig
>
> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>
> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jeremy,
On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA.
> OpenJPA
> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
> forward
> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs.
> Like EJB
> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
> updates
> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs to
> JPA
> 2.0.
>
> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
+1
Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not
have the proper license.
> Ideally, the
> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development,
> with the
> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern
> with that
> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
> repository.
Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden
> on the
> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA
> project to
> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
> Geronimo
> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major
> revisions
> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published
> in the
> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using
> the
> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or
three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion
of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to
make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be
straightforward.
Craig
>
> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>
> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Pinaki Poddar <pp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > What relevance does this possible EG sourced jar have to this
> > discussion? My understanding was that you wouldn't use it even if it
> > existed.
>
> If JPA EG has released source for JPA 2.0 API, then it provides a
> checkpoint
> for source API we may create independently.
Even if the Expert Group would provide source, we (OpenJPA, Geronimo, etc)
would not want to use it due to licensing concerns. We have to base our API
code off of the specification itself. That is, create the source parts
based off the text in the specification.
>
> > I have no problem applying patches promptly and pushing snapshots.
> OK let us try one iteration with a small patch to see how does that this
> process go. I am attaching a patch for new Criteria API definitions.
> http://n2.nabble.com/file/n1511117/jpa2.0-update-1.0-patch.txt
> jpa2.0-update-1.0-patch.txt
>
> This patch is an overlay over
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/src/main/
>
Although David might be a nice guy and accept this patch, the normal process
would be just like somebody contributing to OpenJPA -- you would attach a
patch to the JIRA issue. Based on this string of notes, it looks like
Jeremy had created JIRA Issue GERONIMO-4410 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4410). So, I would think you
should post the patch to that JIRA Issue.
Personally, I would rather see us develop the first cut at OpenJPA first and
then post our tested version to the Geronimo Issue. We could easily create
the first cut in our "sandbox", ensure everything builds and tests, and then
provide the patch to Geronimo.
Thanks,
Kevin
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/Updating-the-JPA-spec-jar-for-JPA-2.0-tp1482013p1511117.html
> Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Pinaki Poddar <pp...@apache.org>.
> What relevance does this possible EG sourced jar have to this
> discussion? My understanding was that you wouldn't use it even if it
> existed.
If JPA EG has released source for JPA 2.0 API, then it provides a checkpoint
for source API we may create independently.
> I have no problem applying patches promptly and pushing snapshots.
OK let us try one iteration with a small patch to see how does that this
process go. I am attaching a patch for new Criteria API definitions.
http://n2.nabble.com/file/n1511117/jpa2.0-update-1.0-patch.txt
jpa2.0-update-1.0-patch.txt
This patch is an overlay over
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/src/main/
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Updating-the-JPA-spec-jar-for-JPA-2.0-tp1482013p1511117.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 17, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Pinaki Poddar wrote:
>
> 1. Where is the 'JPA 2.0 spec jar'? Has JSR group released a API
> jar? I do
> not know of any.
> Can someone tell me if such a jar which corresponds to the API of
> JPA Review
> Dfaft version 2.0 dated Oct 31, 2008?
What relevance does this possible EG sourced jar have to this
discussion? My understanding was that you wouldn't use it even if it
existed.
>
>
> 2. If there is no such jar currently available, then do we (OpenJPA
> developers) create one?
>
> 3. Is there any legal issues with that? If it is legally not
> permissible to
> create one, should we go to a meta-stable state of creating a
> openjpa-2.0-api.jar of our own?
What does the draft spec say? The draft ee 6 specs I've seen say that
you can release jars as long as they are marked "early access" or the
equivalent. I haven't looked at the jpa 2.0 spec. I've been using *-
EA-SNAPSHOT as the version.
>
>
> 3. > IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
> I agree in long term and beg to differ in short-term. The JPA spec jar
> should be added to Geronimo repository *after* it has been publicly
> released
> by JPA Spec committee. This will help the OpenJPA developers to
> proceed with
> a tentative openjpa-2.0-api.jar for JPA 2.0 feature development but
> will
> also save Geronimo developers extra work to update a 'spec jar'
> which is
> neither public nor stable.
Of course you are free to decide to do anything you want. I have no
problem applying patches promptly and pushing snapshots. I would
expect it to involve less pom updating to start out with the jar you
intend to end with and only have to change the version, presumably
with a root pom property.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Updating-the-JPA-spec-jar-for-JPA-2.0-tp1482013p1510252.html
> Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Posted by Pinaki Poddar <pp...@apache.org>.
1. Where is the 'JPA 2.0 spec jar'? Has JSR group released a API jar? I do
not know of any.
Can someone tell me if such a jar which corresponds to the API of JPA Review
Dfaft version 2.0 dated Oct 31, 2008?
2. If there is no such jar currently available, then do we (OpenJPA
developers) create one?
3. Is there any legal issues with that? If it is legally not permissible to
create one, should we go to a meta-stable state of creating a
openjpa-2.0-api.jar of our own?
3. > IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
I agree in long term and beg to differ in short-term. The JPA spec jar
should be added to Geronimo repository *after* it has been publicly released
by JPA Spec committee. This will help the OpenJPA developers to proceed with
a tentative openjpa-2.0-api.jar for JPA 2.0 feature development but will
also save Geronimo developers extra work to update a 'spec jar' which is
neither public nor stable.
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Updating-the-JPA-spec-jar-for-JPA-2.0-tp1482013p1510252.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.