You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> on 2006/04/18 14:53:56 UTC
EJB3 vote
The EJB3 spec is up for final approval vote this week.
There's murmurings that there will be not TCK available for the JPA
subspec of the EJB3 spec.
I find this completely unacceptable, and unless someone can give me a
darn good reason, I plan to protest EJB3 being up for a vote on simple
process grounds (there is no TCK) and failing that, I wish to vote
against the spec. I'm fully aware that EJB3 failing a vote prevents
Java EE 5 from completing, but Sun is as well, and seems to be ok w/
that risk.
When this mess was created two years ago, Sun as the spec lead promised
that there would be a separate TCK for JPA. While I was against the
idea of having JPA buried in EJB3 spec - I had been strongly lobbying
for it to be an independent JSR - having a separate TCK meant that some
of the problematic issues with the situation were resolved - that we
could do nice things w/ JPA in J2SE/Java SE, independent of J2EE/Java
EE. The terms of the "deal" were clear.
This affects us - there is a new podling, Open JPA, that solves a lot of
problems for many projects at the ASF, such as Geronimo for it's EJB3
implementation and many others that wish to use the O/R mapping approach
to object persistence. It's a way to solve the "hibernate problem" for
projects like Roller.
Anyway, in the event that the murmurings are true and that the TCK won't
be made available, I will act early as I wish to give Sun as much time
as possible to remedy the situation and provide the TCK as required by
the JSPA.
geir
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Felipe Leme <fe...@gmail.com>.
+1
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> I find this completely unacceptable, and unless someone can give me a
> darn good reason, I plan to protest EJB3 being up for a vote on simple
> process grounds (there is no TCK) and failing that, I wish to vote
> against the spec. I'm fully aware that EJB3 failing a vote prevents
>
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>.
For now, I'm treating this as an oversight and will be fixed Real Soon
Now(tm).
More as I find out.
geir
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> Can't we get them to call them EJB3-part1 and EJB3-part2 and give them
> separate JSR numbers? I think this is a really bad precedent for the
> JCP to set. Maybe we can get the EC to make an official "never again"
> statement :)
>
> BTW we also have http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cayenne.html which
> is working on a JPA implementation.
>
> -dain
>
> On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:53 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> The EJB3 spec is up for final approval vote this week.
>>
>> There's murmurings that there will be not TCK available for the JPA
>> subspec of the EJB3 spec.
>>
>> I find this completely unacceptable, and unless someone can give me a
>> darn good reason, I plan to protest EJB3 being up for a vote on simple
>> process grounds (there is no TCK) and failing that, I wish to vote
>> against the spec. I'm fully aware that EJB3 failing a vote prevents
>> Java EE 5 from completing, but Sun is as well, and seems to be ok w/
>> that risk.
>>
>> When this mess was created two years ago, Sun as the spec lead
>> promised that there would be a separate TCK for JPA. While I was
>> against the idea of having JPA buried in EJB3 spec - I had been
>> strongly lobbying for it to be an independent JSR - having a separate
>> TCK meant that some of the problematic issues with the situation were
>> resolved - that we could do nice things w/ JPA in J2SE/Java SE,
>> independent of J2EE/Java EE. The terms of the "deal" were clear.
>>
>> This affects us - there is a new podling, Open JPA, that solves a lot
>> of problems for many projects at the ASF, such as Geronimo for it's
>> EJB3 implementation and many others that wish to use the O/R mapping
>> approach to object persistence. It's a way to solve the "hibernate
>> problem" for projects like Roller.
>>
>> Anyway, in the event that the murmurings are true and that the TCK
>> won't be made available, I will act early as I wish to give Sun as
>> much time as possible to remedy the situation and provide the TCK as
>> required by the JSPA.
>>
>> geir
>
>
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>.
and thx for the reminder re Cayenne
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> Can't we get them to call them EJB3-part1 and EJB3-part2 and give them
> separate JSR numbers? I think this is a really bad precedent for the
> JCP to set. Maybe we can get the EC to make an official "never again"
> statement :)
>
> BTW we also have http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cayenne.html which
> is working on a JPA implementation.
>
> -dain
>
> On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:53 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> The EJB3 spec is up for final approval vote this week.
>>
>> There's murmurings that there will be not TCK available for the JPA
>> subspec of the EJB3 spec.
>>
>> I find this completely unacceptable, and unless someone can give me a
>> darn good reason, I plan to protest EJB3 being up for a vote on simple
>> process grounds (there is no TCK) and failing that, I wish to vote
>> against the spec. I'm fully aware that EJB3 failing a vote prevents
>> Java EE 5 from completing, but Sun is as well, and seems to be ok w/
>> that risk.
>>
>> When this mess was created two years ago, Sun as the spec lead
>> promised that there would be a separate TCK for JPA. While I was
>> against the idea of having JPA buried in EJB3 spec - I had been
>> strongly lobbying for it to be an independent JSR - having a separate
>> TCK meant that some of the problematic issues with the situation were
>> resolved - that we could do nice things w/ JPA in J2SE/Java SE,
>> independent of J2EE/Java EE. The terms of the "deal" were clear.
>>
>> This affects us - there is a new podling, Open JPA, that solves a lot
>> of problems for many projects at the ASF, such as Geronimo for it's
>> EJB3 implementation and many others that wish to use the O/R mapping
>> approach to object persistence. It's a way to solve the "hibernate
>> problem" for projects like Roller.
>>
>> Anyway, in the event that the murmurings are true and that the TCK
>> won't be made available, I will act early as I wish to give Sun as
>> much time as possible to remedy the situation and provide the TCK as
>> required by the JSPA.
>>
>> geir
>
>
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Felipe Leme <fe...@gmail.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Can't we get them to call them EJB3-part1 and EJB3-part2 and give them
> separate JSR numbers?
Unfortunately, it's not that simple and definitively not possible for
this JSR. I think there's been some murmurings about that possibiblity
when the JDO and EJB JSRs joined forces some time ago (see
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/letter/persistence.html) and they decided to
create such separated JSR in the future, but I can't tell you for sure
>I think this is a really bad precedent for the
> JCP to set. Maybe we can get the EC to make an official "never again"
> statement :)
What exactly do you mean by 'bad precedent', the fact that 1 JSR
creates 2 specs or the TCK issue? If you meant the former, there is
already a precedent: the JSR-245 defines the JSP 2.1 and the javax.el
specs.
-- Felipe
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I couldn't agree more.
Can't we get them to call them EJB3-part1 and EJB3-part2 and give
them separate JSR numbers? I think this is a really bad precedent
for the JCP to set. Maybe we can get the EC to make an official
"never again" statement :)
BTW we also have http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cayenne.html
which is working on a JPA implementation.
-dain
On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:53 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> The EJB3 spec is up for final approval vote this week.
>
> There's murmurings that there will be not TCK available for the JPA
> subspec of the EJB3 spec.
>
> I find this completely unacceptable, and unless someone can give me
> a darn good reason, I plan to protest EJB3 being up for a vote on
> simple process grounds (there is no TCK) and failing that, I wish
> to vote against the spec. I'm fully aware that EJB3 failing a vote
> prevents Java EE 5 from completing, but Sun is as well, and seems
> to be ok w/ that risk.
>
> When this mess was created two years ago, Sun as the spec lead
> promised that there would be a separate TCK for JPA. While I was
> against the idea of having JPA buried in EJB3 spec - I had been
> strongly lobbying for it to be an independent JSR - having a
> separate TCK meant that some of the problematic issues with the
> situation were resolved - that we could do nice things w/ JPA in
> J2SE/Java SE, independent of J2EE/Java EE. The terms of the "deal"
> were clear.
>
> This affects us - there is a new podling, Open JPA, that solves a
> lot of problems for many projects at the ASF, such as Geronimo for
> it's EJB3 implementation and many others that wish to use the O/R
> mapping approach to object persistence. It's a way to solve the
> "hibernate problem" for projects like Roller.
>
> Anyway, in the event that the murmurings are true and that the TCK
> won't be made available, I will act early as I wish to give Sun as
> much time as possible to remedy the situation and provide the TCK
> as required by the JSPA.
>
> geir
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Felipe Leme <fe...@gmail.com>.
On 4/18/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
> If however the TCK is made available, is everyone agreeing that we are
> voting for the proposal? ie) there are no other issues?
It would also be nice if the TCK was made available in an open-source
license, but I doubt it will (and anyway, that's not a show stopper
for us, as we can still obtain it through the scholarship).
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>.
Yep.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> +1 to us voting against.
>
> If however the TCK is made available, is everyone agreeing that we are
> voting for the proposal? ie) there are no other issues?
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> The EJB3 spec is up for final approval vote this week.
>>
>> There's murmurings that there will be not TCK available for the JPA
>> subspec of the EJB3 spec.
>>
>> I find this completely unacceptable, and unless someone can give me a
>> darn good reason, I plan to protest EJB3 being up for a vote on simple
>> process grounds (there is no TCK) and failing that, I wish to vote
>> against the spec. I'm fully aware that EJB3 failing a vote prevents
>> Java EE 5 from completing, but Sun is as well, and seems to be ok w/
>> that risk.
>>
>> When this mess was created two years ago, Sun as the spec lead
>> promised that there would be a separate TCK for JPA. While I was
>> against the idea of having JPA buried in EJB3 spec - I had been
>> strongly lobbying for it to be an independent JSR - having a separate
>> TCK meant that some of the problematic issues with the situation were
>> resolved - that we could do nice things w/ JPA in J2SE/Java SE,
>> independent of J2EE/Java EE. The terms of the "deal" were clear.
>>
>> This affects us - there is a new podling, Open JPA, that solves a lot
>> of problems for many projects at the ASF, such as Geronimo for it's
>> EJB3 implementation and many others that wish to use the O/R mapping
>> approach to object persistence. It's a way to solve the "hibernate
>> problem" for projects like Roller.
>>
>> Anyway, in the event that the murmurings are true and that the TCK
>> won't be made available, I will act early as I wish to give Sun as
>> much time as possible to remedy the situation and provide the TCK as
>> required by the JSPA.
>>
>> geir
>>
>
>
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
+1 to us voting against.
If however the TCK is made available, is everyone agreeing that we are
voting for the proposal? ie) there are no other issues?
Hen
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> The EJB3 spec is up for final approval vote this week.
>
> There's murmurings that there will be not TCK available for the JPA subspec
> of the EJB3 spec.
>
> I find this completely unacceptable, and unless someone can give me a darn
> good reason, I plan to protest EJB3 being up for a vote on simple process
> grounds (there is no TCK) and failing that, I wish to vote against the spec.
> I'm fully aware that EJB3 failing a vote prevents Java EE 5 from completing,
> but Sun is as well, and seems to be ok w/ that risk.
>
> When this mess was created two years ago, Sun as the spec lead promised that
> there would be a separate TCK for JPA. While I was against the idea of
> having JPA buried in EJB3 spec - I had been strongly lobbying for it to be an
> independent JSR - having a separate TCK meant that some of the problematic
> issues with the situation were resolved - that we could do nice things w/ JPA
> in J2SE/Java SE, independent of J2EE/Java EE. The terms of the "deal" were
> clear.
>
> This affects us - there is a new podling, Open JPA, that solves a lot of
> problems for many projects at the ASF, such as Geronimo for it's EJB3
> implementation and many others that wish to use the O/R mapping approach to
> object persistence. It's a way to solve the "hibernate problem" for projects
> like Roller.
>
> Anyway, in the event that the murmurings are true and that the TCK won't be
> made available, I will act early as I wish to give Sun as much time as
> possible to remedy the situation and provide the TCK as required by the JSPA.
>
> geir
>
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>.
Felipe Leme wrote:
> Hi again Geir,
>
>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> When this mess was created two years ago, Sun as the spec lead
>> promised that there would be a separate TCK for JPA. While I was
>> against the
>
> Just for the record, that promise is officially stated in the "A Letter
> to the Java Technology Community"
> (http://java.sun.com/j2ee/letter/persistence.html):
>
>
> "The new POJO persistence model will be delivered by JSR-220 as a
> separate specification, Reference Implementation, and Technology
> Compatibility Kit, usable independently of EJB 3.0."
I know.
>
> And that's not all: they also "believe this is a unique opportunity for
> the Java community to create a common POJO persistence model for both
> J2SE and J2EE" and "ask the entire Java technology community to support
> us and the efforts of the JSR-220 Expert Group".
Yep. It was something that we lobbied very hard for.
As a matter of fact, I was trying to get a third JSR started to do what
became JPA as a compromised during the JDO/EJB3 war...
> So, I'd say they asked and we supported it; now it's their time to keep
> the promisse and deliver a separate spec, RI and TCK.
Yep.
geir
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Felipe Leme <fe...@gmail.com>.
Hi again Geir,
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> When this mess was created two years ago, Sun as the spec lead promised
> that there would be a separate TCK for JPA. While I was against the
Just for the record, that promise is officially stated in the "A Letter
to the Java Technology Community"
(http://java.sun.com/j2ee/letter/persistence.html):
"The new POJO persistence model will be delivered by JSR-220 as a
separate specification, Reference Implementation, and Technology
Compatibility Kit, usable independently of EJB 3.0."
And that's not all: they also "believe this is a unique opportunity for
the Java community to create a common POJO persistence model for both
J2SE and J2EE" and "ask the entire Java technology community to support
us and the efforts of the JSR-220 Expert Group".
So, I'd say they asked and we supported it; now it's their time to keep
the promisse and deliver a separate spec, RI and TCK.
-- Felipe
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@apache.org>.
On 4/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> I find this completely unacceptable, and unless someone can give me a
> darn good reason, I plan to protest EJB3 being up for a vote on simple
> process grounds (there is no TCK) and failing that, I wish to vote
> against the spec. I'm fully aware that EJB3 failing a vote prevents
> Java EE 5 from completing, but Sun is as well, and seems to be ok w/
> that risk.
FWIW, I support your line of thinking the fullest, and I hope that your
actions will send a strong and clear signal.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Oh, crap.
Yes, they did. A few nudges from a few people and voila. There is a
commitment to get the thing delivered by May 15, IIRC.
Sorry for not mentioning it.
geir
Felipe Leme wrote:
> Hi Geir,
>
> The final approval ballot is out
> (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=3768) and "On 2006-05-01 Apache
> Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment."
>
> So, did they confirm the JPA TCK will be available separately?
>
> []s,
>
> -- Felipe
>
>
> On 4/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> The EJB3 spec is up for final approval vote this week.
>>
>> There's murmurings that there will be not TCK available for the JPA
>> subspec of the EJB3 spec.
>
>
Re: EJB3 vote
Posted by Felipe Leme <fe...@gmail.com>.
Hi Geir,
The final approval ballot is out
(http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=3768) and "On 2006-05-01 Apache
Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment."
So, did they confirm the JPA TCK will be available separately?
[]s,
-- Felipe
On 4/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> The EJB3 spec is up for final approval vote this week.
>
> There's murmurings that there will be not TCK available for the JPA
> subspec of the EJB3 spec.