You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> on 2007/02/09 06:41:43 UTC
[VOTE] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo version
It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the
final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention,
for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all the
compatibility tests we need.
The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/
org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have
the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the
Geronimo versions.
+1 indicates that you approve of the change
-1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
[VOTE RESULT] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo version
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
With 7 votes in favor and none against, the vote passes!
The vote thread can be viewed at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-open-jpa-dev/
200702.mbox/%3cDF2A0924-993C-4001-B5AA-EA3F9E8FA576@apache.org%3e
I've updated the dependencies in the pom.xml file and committed.
Thanks to all who voted!
On Feb 9, 2007, at 6:09 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> +1
>
> On Feb 9, 2007, at 12:41 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>>
>> It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
>> from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
>> javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually
>> the final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
>> compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime
>> retention, for example), but they are enough to prevent us from
>> passing all the compatibility tests we need.
>>
>> The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/
>> maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
>> jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
>> api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
>> our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would
>> have the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using
>> the Geronimo versions.
>>
>> +1 indicates that you approve of the change
>> -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo version
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
+1
On Feb 9, 2007, at 12:41 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
> from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
> javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the
> final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
> compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention,
> for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all
> the compatibility tests we need.
>
> The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/
> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
> jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
>
> How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
> api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
> our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have
> the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the
> Geronimo versions.
>
> +1 indicates that you approve of the change
> -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo version
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
The Geronimo API is verified using the official Jee5 signatures file.
-dain
On Feb 8, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
> from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
> javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the
> final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
> compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention,
> for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all
> the compatibility tests we need.
>
> The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/
> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
> jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
>
> How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
> api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
> our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have
> the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the
> Geronimo versions.
>
> +1 indicates that you approve of the change
> -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo
version
Posted by Bryan Noll <bw...@gmail.com>.
+1 ...because of the compliance reasons you outlined.
Michael Dick wrote:
> +1
>
> On 2/10/07, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> > +1
>> >
>> > My vote is as much related to dissatisfaction with the maven repo
>> > that is used by glassfish as with the time it takes to get anything
>> > done through official channels.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > On Feb 8, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
>> > > from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
>> > > javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the
>> > > final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
>> > > compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention,
>> > > for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all
>> > > the compatibility tests we need.
>> > >
>> > > The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/
>> > > org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
>> > > jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
>> > >
>> > > How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
>> > > api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
>> > > our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have
>> > > the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the
>> > > Geronimo versions.
>> > >
>> > > +1 indicates that you approve of the change
>> > > -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Craig Russell
>> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo version
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 2/10/07, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/9/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > My vote is as much related to dissatisfaction with the maven repo
> > that is used by glassfish as with the time it takes to get anything
> > done through official channels.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
> > > from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
> > > javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the
> > > final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
> > > compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention,
> > > for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all
> > > the compatibility tests we need.
> > >
> > > The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/
> > > org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
> > > jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
> > > api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
> > > our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have
> > > the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the
> > > Geronimo versions.
> > >
> > > +1 indicates that you approve of the change
> > > -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Craig Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
> >
>
--
-Michael Dick
Re: [VOTE] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo version
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 2/9/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> My vote is as much related to dissatisfaction with the maven repo
> that is used by glassfish as with the time it takes to get anything
> done through official channels.
>
> Craig
>
> On Feb 8, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> >
> > It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
> > from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
> > javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the
> > final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
> > compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention,
> > for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all
> > the compatibility tests we need.
> >
> > The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/
> > org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
> > jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
> >
> > How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
> > api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
> > our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have
> > the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the
> > Geronimo versions.
> >
> > +1 indicates that you approve of the change
> > -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo
version
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
+1
My vote is as much related to dissatisfaction with the maven repo
that is used by glassfish as with the time it takes to get anything
done through official channels.
Craig
On Feb 8, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
> from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
> javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the
> final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
> compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention,
> for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all
> the compatibility tests we need.
>
> The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/
> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
> jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
>
> How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
> api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
> our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have
> the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the
> Geronimo versions.
>
> +1 indicates that you approve of the change
> -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
>
>
>
>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Move JPA API dependency from dev.java.net to geronimo version
Posted by Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>.
+1
Either move to the Geronimo version or get the dev.java version updated.
Either way, just so that we're using a spec-compliant version of the API.
Thanks!
Kevin
On 2/8/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
> from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/
> javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the
> final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary-
> compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention,
> for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all the
> compatibility tests we need.
>
> The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/
> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo-
> jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell.
>
> How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence-
> api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all
> our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have
> the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the
> Geronimo versions.
>
> +1 indicates that you approve of the change
> -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made
>
>
>
>
>
>