You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM> on 2006/10/27 06:16:11 UTC
JTA 1.1 has been published
Hi,
You might find this of interest. The JDO project recently updated our
jta dependencies.
maven.repo.remote = http://www.ibiblio.org/maven,https://maven-
repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository
<dependencies>
<dependency>
- <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
- <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
- <version>1.0</version>
+ <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
+ <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
+ <version>1.1</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
repository.
The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any of
the openjpa libraries.
Craig Russell
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> And why not use something from a sister project to make it better?
>
>
> I was operating under the assumption that Geronimo itself would
> move to use these authoritative jars. Perhaps someone from the
> Geronimo team can confirm or deny this?
That'd never happen. Especially with javamail, activation and
corba. They're the only clean-room ASL/BSD versions of those
libraries out there.
There's even been talk in the past of moving the specs out of
Geronimo to some sort of common area, not sure where, as there's no
reason Axis, Tomcat, ActiveMQ, and a large list of other projects
need to have "geronimo" deps on what isn't geronimo specific to begin
with.
That something you'd guys go for?
-David
>
>
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the
>>>> java.net repository.
>>> +1 for using the official JTA libraries, rather than the stopgap
>>> Geronimo clones.
>>> I'll update the pom.xml unless anyone objects.
>>> On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> You might find this of interest. The JDO project recently
>>>> updated our jta dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> maven.repo.remote = http://www.ibiblio.org/maven,https://maven-
>>>> repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository
>>>>
>>>> <dependencies>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> - <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>> - <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
>>>> - <version>1.0</version>
>>>> + <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
>>>> + <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
>>>> + <version>1.1</version>
>>>> </dependency>
>>>> </dependencies>
>>>>
>>>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the
>>>> java.net repository.
>>>>
>>>> The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any
>>>> of the openjpa libraries.
>>>>
>>>> Craig Russell
>>>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> You might ask them, but I believe that the maven folks have adopted the
> name space conventions of java: the java and javax groupid prefixes are
> reserved for the jcp; com.sun belongs to sun, com.oracle belongs to
> oracle, org.apache belongs to apache, etc.
That makes sense, except that the JCP doesn't produce any software itself.
The spec leads do.
>
> As long as people respect the name spaces, then everything is ok. I
> believe that any trespass will be dealt with appropriately.
>
How? :)
> I understand that this doesn't accommodate Geronimo's spec-jars group
> id, but I think that this just needs some special case handling. You
> have to know where the Geronimo implementation is, because if you don't,
> you will end up with the RI.
>
We aren't talking about implementation though, just spec jars. I should
be able to put 'my' spec jars in the same spot in the namespace and keep
on my maven repo, right?
(This really has nothing to do w/ OpenJPA of course, but it's an
interesting question...)
geir
> Craig
>
> On Oct 29, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> <dependency>
>>> <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
>>> <version>1.1</version>
>>> </dependency>
>>
>> I've often wondered what will happen with respect to groupId namespace
>> management as the use of maven increases. I assume that in theory
>> anyone can publish a javax.transaction/transaction-api/1.1 jar? Has
>> the maven project considered creating a registry?
>>
>> geir
>
> 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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
You might ask them, but I believe that the maven folks have adopted
the name space conventions of java: the java and javax groupid
prefixes are reserved for the jcp; com.sun belongs to sun, com.oracle
belongs to oracle, org.apache belongs to apache, etc.
As long as people respect the name spaces, then everything is ok. I
believe that any trespass will be dealt with appropriately.
I understand that this doesn't accommodate Geronimo's spec-jars group
id, but I think that this just needs some special case handling. You
have to know where the Geronimo implementation is, because if you
don't, you will end up with the RI.
Craig
On Oct 29, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
>> <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
>> <version>1.1</version>
>> </dependency>
>
> I've often wondered what will happen with respect to groupId
> namespace management as the use of maven increases. I assume that
> in theory anyone can publish a javax.transaction/transaction-api/
> 1.1 jar? Has the maven project considered creating a registry?
>
> geir
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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I don't care :) I was just confused over whether or not the RI was
still open source. I was pretty sure that the RI was considered
compliant :)
geir
Craig L Russell wrote:
> I stand corrected. The Glassfish Reference Implementation is open source.
>
> I could change this to "is there an Apache implementation". Would that
> be ok, or just not add value?
>
> Craig
>
> On Oct 29, 2006, at 6:55 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> Q. Is there an open source version of the jar available?
>>> A. Not yet. Since this is a specification jar, only a Java EE 5
>>> compliant application server can publish a production-ready version
>>> of the jar. There are not yet any open source Java EE 5 compliant
>>> application servers.
>>
>>
>> I thought Glassfish, the Java EE 5 RI, was open source? I assume that
>> is still the case?
>>
>> geir
>
> 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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I stand corrected. The Glassfish Reference Implementation is open
source.
I could change this to "is there an Apache implementation". Would
that be ok, or just not add value?
Craig
On Oct 29, 2006, at 6:55 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Q. Is there an open source version of the jar available?
>> A. Not yet. Since this is a specification jar, only a Java EE 5
>> compliant application server can publish a production-ready
>> version of the jar. There are not yet any open source Java EE 5
>> compliant application servers.
>
>
> I thought Glassfish, the Java EE 5 RI, was open source? I assume
> that is still the case?
>
> geir
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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Q. Is there an open source version of the jar available?
>
> A. Not yet. Since this is a specification jar, only a Java EE 5
> compliant application server can publish a production-ready version of
> the jar. There are not yet any open source Java EE 5 compliant
> application servers.
I thought Glassfish, the Java EE 5 RI, was open source? I assume that
is still the case?
geir
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> <dependency>
> <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
> <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
> <version>1.1</version>
> </dependency>
>
I've often wondered what will happen with respect to groupId namespace
management as the use of maven increases. I assume that in theory
anyone can publish a javax.transaction/transaction-api/1.1 jar? Has
the maven project considered creating a registry?
geir
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I've condensed this email thread into an FAQ. Please review.
Q. What is the difference between JTA 1.0.1 and JTA 1.1?
A. There is a new interface, TransactionSynchronizationRegistry, that
allows an application or a component to get some help from the
container with synchronizing its state with the transaction context
of its environment.
This interface is intended for use by system level application server
components such as persistence managers. This provides the ability to
register synchronization objects with special ordering semantics,
associate resource objects with the current transaction, get the
transaction context of the current transaction, get current
transaction status, and mark the current transaction for rollback.
This interface is implemented by the application server by a
stateless service object. The same object can be used by any number
of components with thread safety.
Q. Can other components use this interface?
The interface can be used by any component. There are no restrictions.
Q. In which environments can I use the new interface?
A. The interface is defined to be available at a specific JNDI
location java:comp/TransactionSynchronizationRegistry from within an
application server that conforms to the Java EE 5 specification.
Q. What is the rationale for providing this interface?
A. All application servers provide a means for giving certain
components access to transaction context but these means are
proprietary and offer different functionality.
Q. How can I get access to the JTA 1.1 jar that contains the new
interface?
A. The jar is available for download from https://maven-
repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository/javax.transaction/jars/
transaction-api-1.1.jar or if using maven, you can add the repository
https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository and declare a
dependency in the project file:
<dependency>
<groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
<artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
<version>1.1</version>
</dependency>
Q. What version of JDK was the jar compiled with?
A. JDK 1.3 was used for the compilation of the jar.
Q. Is the jar from java.net more "official" than other versions of
the jar?
A. This implementation of the collection of interfaces is part of the
Reference Implementation of Java EE 5. But the Java EE 5
specification does not mandate any particular packaging of the
interfaces into jars. In particular, there is no specification of the
existence of a JTA 1.1 jar, nor the contents of this jar or packaging
it as a maven repository.
Q. Could there be a "better" or more functional version of the JTA
1.1 jars or interfaces?
A. Not really. These interfaces are part of the official Java EE 5
specification, and the interfaces cannot be subsetted or supersetted.
All versions of the interfaces must work exactly the same, as
demonstrated by passing the Java EE 5 CTS.
Q. Is there an open source version of the jar available?
A. Not yet. Since this is a specification jar, only a Java EE 5
compliant application server can publish a production-ready version
of the jar. There are not yet any open source Java EE 5 compliant
application servers.
Craig Russell
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Geir,
>
> So, back to the issue at hand.
>
> JTA 1.1 has been published. It includes interface definitions that will
> be needed for OpenJPA to use the new TransactionSynchronizationRegistry
> that allows us to use standard interfaces for Java EE 5 servers in
> preference over proprietary interfaces for transaction synchronization.
>
> So it seems that we need to have a JTA 1.1 jar file. It's available
> today from java.net.
So get it from there. (What's the URL, btw?)
>
> When will it be available from Geronimo? This is an implementation of a
> JCP specification, so there are licensing issues involved. IIUC,
> Geronimo cannot publish JTA 1.1 until Geronimo passes the TCK for Java
> EE 5.
There's some debatable subtleties in there regarding if *anyone* can
actually distribute JTA by itself, but that's not germane to this
discussion.
I think the place to ask is on the dev@geronimo.apache.org list
geir
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> On Oct 28, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
>>> compile with 1.3?
>>
>> You need 1.3? Cool.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> ( I thought you just voted to abandon 1.3)
>>
>>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>>> Craig
>>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I'm not married to the idea of using the, shall we say,
>>>>> "sanctioned" jars. Your concerns, coupled with David's mention that
>>>>> Geronimo isn't going to change their dependencies, are sufficient
>>>>> for me to drop the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Just so you don't feel strong-armed, it's not an issue -- whatever
>>>> is good for you and your users is a-okay.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
> 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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Geir,
So, back to the issue at hand.
JTA 1.1 has been published. It includes interface definitions that
will be needed for OpenJPA to use the new
TransactionSynchronizationRegistry that allows us to use standard
interfaces for Java EE 5 servers in preference over proprietary
interfaces for transaction synchronization.
So it seems that we need to have a JTA 1.1 jar file. It's available
today from java.net.
When will it be available from Geronimo? This is an implementation of
a JCP specification, so there are licensing issues involved. IIUC,
Geronimo cannot publish JTA 1.1 until Geronimo passes the TCK for
Java EE 5.
Thanks,
Craig
On Oct 28, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
>> compile with 1.3?
>
> You need 1.3? Cool.
>
> geir
>
> ( I thought you just voted to abandon 1.3)
>
>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>> Craig
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway, I'm not married to the idea of using the, shall we say,
>>>> "sanctioned" jars. Your concerns, coupled with David's mention
>>>> that Geronimo isn't going to change their dependencies, are
>>>> sufficient for me to drop the issue.
>>>
>>> Just so you don't feel strong-armed, it's not an issue --
>>> whatever is good for you and your users is a-okay.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>> Craig Russell
>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Geir,
>
> On Oct 28, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
>>> compile with 1.3?
>>
>> You need 1.3? Cool.
>
> I'm speaking for the community, of which OpenJPA is one and Apache JDO
> is another.
I figured, as you used "we". I assume you don't refer to yourself in
plural.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> ( I thought you just voted to abandon 1.3)
>
> The vote has not been tallied yet.
>
> I'm not sure whether you are tweaking or are serious. Did you forget a
> smiley face in your message?
tweaking? how? I thought that you were going to stop supporting 1.3.
I didn't realize that vote hadn't been tallied.
geir
>
> Craig
>>
>>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>>> Craig
>>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I'm not married to the idea of using the, shall we say,
>>>>> "sanctioned" jars. Your concerns, coupled with David's mention that
>>>>> Geronimo isn't going to change their dependencies, are sufficient
>>>>> for me to drop the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Just so you don't feel strong-armed, it's not an issue -- whatever
>>>> is good for you and your users is a-okay.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
> 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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Geir,
On Oct 28, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
>> compile with 1.3?
>
> You need 1.3? Cool.
I'm speaking for the community, of which OpenJPA is one and Apache
JDO is another.
>
> geir
>
> ( I thought you just voted to abandon 1.3)
The vote has not been tallied yet.
I'm not sure whether you are tweaking or are serious. Did you forget
a smiley face in your message?
Craig
>
>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>> Craig
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway, I'm not married to the idea of using the, shall we say,
>>>> "sanctioned" jars. Your concerns, coupled with David's mention
>>>> that Geronimo isn't going to change their dependencies, are
>>>> sufficient for me to drop the issue.
>>>
>>> Just so you don't feel strong-armed, it's not an issue --
>>> whatever is good for you and your users is a-okay.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>> Craig Russell
>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and compile
> with 1.3?
You need 1.3? Cool.
geir
( I thought you just voted to abandon 1.3)
>
> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>
> Craig
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, I'm not married to the idea of using the, shall we say,
>>> "sanctioned" jars. Your concerns, coupled with David's mention that
>>> Geronimo isn't going to change their dependencies, are sufficient for
>>> me to drop the issue.
>>
>> Just so you don't feel strong-armed, it's not an issue -- whatever is
>> good for you and your users is a-okay.
>>
>> -David
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Just one question. What was the rationale for the name of the
> branch for JTA
> .../geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jta_1.1_spec-1.0
>
> Why not
> .../geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jta-spec-1.1
>
> The spec is version 1.1. What does the 1.0 designation mean? And
> without doing the hard work, can you tell me what the artifact name
> is? Hopefully something that doesn't include the 1.0 designation...
Don't ask :) I'd personally prefer what you mention or even groupId
'org.apache', artifactId 'javax.transaction' and the version
'1.1-01'. But you know how it goes.
So the deal is <version>1.1</version> isn't used in case another
version the jar needs to be released (common for javamail and
activation, not common for pure interface/annotation/exception based
specs).
Then the idea was to put the version in the artifactId leading to at
least <artifactId>jta-1.1</artifact><version>1.0</version>, but then
maven is going to choke as the resulting jar 'jta-1.1-1.0.jar' will
get interpreted as <artifactId>jta</artifactId><version>1.1-1.0</
version> when the jar name is parsed back into a maven dep name.
So then the underscores came into the picture giving us
'<artifactId>jta_1.1</artifact><version>1.0</version>' which results
in jta_1.1-1.0.jar. This is technically fine doesn't incur any maven
issues, but some people thought it might be confusing so we tacked
the word 'spec' on the end of it '<artifactId>jta_1.1_spec</
artifact><version>1.0</version>' and of course you have to brand it
with Geronimo so the end result is '<artifactId>geronimo-
jta_1.1_spec</artifact><version>1.0</version>'
Aren't you sorry you asked :) That ought to teach ya!
To use it you declare you dep like this:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.1_spec</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
And depending on what you're doing you likely want to put
<scope>provided</scope> after the version tag.
-David
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:19 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
>>> compile with 1.3?
>>>
>>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so it's taken me a while to get this done, but I've got our
>> JTA 1.1 and JPA specs ready for release and up for vote.
>>
>> The JPA spec jar had some compliance issues which I fixed:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-scm/200612.mbox/%
>> 3c20061221041508.72F661A981A@eris.apache.org%3e
>>
>> The JTA spec jar was fine.
>>
>> Assuming those votes pass, I'll publish them both and the JTA jar
>> with jdk 1.3 as requested -- ensuring the "goodness" is locked in :)
>>
>> Also let me formally invite/encourage you all to vote:
>>
>> JTA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/
>> 200612.mbox/%3cE218ADD2-5B6A-4B35-879F-FAA156ABF4BE@visi.com%3e
>> JPA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/
>> 200612.mbox/%3c00EA6A4E-0459-4503-AFD3-0BFC4ACE4372@visi.com%3e
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi David,
Just one question. What was the rationale for the name of the branch
for JTA
.../geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jta_1.1_spec-1.0
Why not
.../geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jta-spec-1.1
The spec is version 1.1. What does the 1.0 designation mean? And
without doing the hard work, can you tell me what the artifact name
is? Hopefully something that doesn't include the 1.0 designation...
Thanks,
Craig
On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:19 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
>> compile with 1.3?
>>
>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>>
>
> Ok, so it's taken me a while to get this done, but I've got our JTA
> 1.1 and JPA specs ready for release and up for vote.
>
> The JPA spec jar had some compliance issues which I fixed:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-scm/200612.mbox/%
> 3c20061221041508.72F661A981A@eris.apache.org%3e
>
> The JTA spec jar was fine.
>
> Assuming those votes pass, I'll publish them both and the JTA jar
> with jdk 1.3 as requested -- ensuring the "goodness" is locked in :)
>
> Also let me formally invite/encourage you all to vote:
>
> JTA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/
> 200612.mbox/%3cE218ADD2-5B6A-4B35-879F-FAA156ABF4BE@visi.com%3e
> JPA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/
> 200612.mbox/%3c00EA6A4E-0459-4503-AFD3-0BFC4ACE4372@visi.com%3e
>
> -David
>
>
>
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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi David,
Thanks again for listening to our request for 1.3 jars.
Craig
On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:38 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:19 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
>>> compile with 1.3?
>>>
>>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so it's taken me a while to get this done, but I've got our
>> JTA 1.1 and JPA specs ready for release and up for vote.
>>
>> The JPA spec jar had some compliance issues which I fixed:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-scm/200612.mbox/%
>> 3c20061221041508.72F661A981A@eris.apache.org%3e
>>
>> The JTA spec jar was fine.
>>
>> Assuming those votes pass, I'll publish them both and the JTA jar
>> with jdk 1.3 as requested -- ensuring the "goodness" is locked in :)
>>
>
> FYI, the specs are final and available should you want them.
>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-
> jta_1.1_spec/1.0/
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-
> jpa_3.0_spec/1.0/
>
> And the jta jar was compiled with jdk 1.3.
>
> -David
>
>
>
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: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:19 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
>> compile with 1.3?
>>
>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>>
>
> Ok, so it's taken me a while to get this done, but I've got our JTA
> 1.1 and JPA specs ready for release and up for vote.
>
> The JPA spec jar had some compliance issues which I fixed:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-scm/200612.mbox/%
> 3c20061221041508.72F661A981A@eris.apache.org%3e
>
> The JTA spec jar was fine.
>
> Assuming those votes pass, I'll publish them both and the JTA jar
> with jdk 1.3 as requested -- ensuring the "goodness" is locked in :)
>
FYI, the specs are final and available should you want them.
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-
jta_1.1_spec/1.0/
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-
jpa_3.0_spec/1.0/
And the jta jar was compiled with jdk 1.3.
-David
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
> compile with 1.3?
>
> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>
Ok, so it's taken me a while to get this done, but I've got our JTA
1.1 and JPA specs ready for release and up for vote.
The JPA spec jar had some compliance issues which I fixed:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-scm/200612.mbox/%
3c20061221041508.72F661A981A@eris.apache.org%3e
The JTA spec jar was fine.
Assuming those votes pass, I'll publish them both and the JTA jar
with jdk 1.3 as requested -- ensuring the "goodness" is locked in :)
Also let me formally invite/encourage you all to vote:
JTA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/
200612.mbox/%3cE218ADD2-5B6A-4B35-879F-FAA156ABF4BE@visi.com%3e
JPA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/
200612.mbox/%3c00EA6A4E-0459-4503-AFD3-0BFC4ACE4372@visi.com%3e
-David
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
compile with 1.3?
These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
Craig
On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I'm not married to the idea of using the, shall we say,
>> "sanctioned" jars. Your concerns, coupled with David's mention
>> that Geronimo isn't going to change their dependencies, are
>> sufficient for me to drop the issue.
>
> Just so you don't feel strong-armed, it's not an issue -- whatever
> is good for you and your users is a-okay.
>
> -David
>
Craig Russell
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Anyway, I'm not married to the idea of using the, shall we say,
> "sanctioned" jars. Your concerns, coupled with David's mention that
> Geronimo isn't going to change their dependencies, are sufficient
> for me to drop the issue.
Just so you don't feel strong-armed, it's not an issue -- whatever is
good for you and your users is a-okay.
-David
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Just to drive this point home, would you argue that Kodo is not as
> good as the "authoritative" RI for JDO or JPA?
A reference implementation is an example implementation and proof of
concept. Different implementations are encouraged and allow support
for a wide range of databases and performance needs.
The interface jars are actually part of the specification.
Functionally, the interface jars are (or should be) identical, so
there is no practical difference. Furthermore, different
implementations are technically prohibited by the Sun license.
Anyway, I'm not married to the idea of using the, shall we say,
"sanctioned" jars. Your concerns, coupled with David's mention that
Geronimo isn't going to change their dependencies, are sufficient for
me to drop the issue.
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Just to drive this point home, would you argue that Kodo is not as good
as the "authoritative" RI for JDO or JPA?
Why are we bothering with OpenJPA when the "authoritative" JPA exists in
Glassfish?
;)
geir
Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I just gotta ask....
>>
>> Why is one implementation "official" and another isn't if the are both
>> compatible?
>
>
> My understanding is that the Geronimo spec jars only exist as a stopgap
> measure to allow Geronimo to be built without having to jump through the
> Sun jar "coping" hoops
> (http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-coping-with-sun-jars.html).
> Now that they are publicly available, it seems clear to me that we
> should use the authoritative jars whenever possible.
>
>
>> And why not use something from a sister project to make it better?
>
>
> I was operating under the assumption that Geronimo itself would move to
> use these authoritative jars. Perhaps someone from the Geronimo team can
> confirm or deny this?
>
>
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
>>>> repository.
>>> +1 for using the official JTA libraries, rather than the stopgap
>>> Geronimo clones.
>>> I'll update the pom.xml unless anyone objects.
>>> On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> You might find this of interest. The JDO project recently updated
>>>> our jta dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> maven.repo.remote =
>>>> http://www.ibiblio.org/maven,https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <dependencies>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> - <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>> - <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
>>>> - <version>1.0</version>
>>>> + <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
>>>> + <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
>>>> + <version>1.1</version>
>>>> </dependency>
>>>> </dependencies>
>>>>
>>>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
>>>> repository.
>>>>
>>>> The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any of
>>>> the openjpa libraries.
>>>>
>>>> Craig Russell
>>>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I just gotta ask....
>>
>> Why is one implementation "official" and another isn't if the are both
>> compatible?
>
>
> My understanding is that the Geronimo spec jars only exist as a stopgap
> measure to allow Geronimo to be built without having to jump through the
> Sun jar "coping" hoops
> (http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-coping-with-sun-jars.html).
> Now that they are publicly available, it seems clear to me that we
> should use the authoritative jars whenever possible.
>
I'm still not grokking the "authoritative" bit. If an implementation
passes the TCK, it's as "authoritative" as the next implementation that
passes the TCK, right?
RI's are good for showing something can be done (that is the point of
the RI in the JCP), but implementations written with production use in
mind - something with actual customers - seems preferable to me.
>
>> And why not use something from a sister project to make it better?
>
>
> I was operating under the assumption that Geronimo itself would move to
> use these authoritative jars. Perhaps someone from the Geronimo team can
> confirm or deny this?
>
>
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
>>>> repository.
>>> +1 for using the official JTA libraries, rather than the stopgap
>>> Geronimo clones.
>>> I'll update the pom.xml unless anyone objects.
>>> On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> You might find this of interest. The JDO project recently updated
>>>> our jta dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> maven.repo.remote =
>>>> http://www.ibiblio.org/maven,https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <dependencies>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> - <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>> - <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
>>>> - <version>1.0</version>
>>>> + <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
>>>> + <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
>>>> + <version>1.1</version>
>>>> </dependency>
>>>> </dependencies>
>>>>
>>>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
>>>> repository.
>>>>
>>>> The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any of
>>>> the openjpa libraries.
>>>>
>>>> Craig Russell
>>>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I just gotta ask....
>
> Why is one implementation "official" and another isn't if the are
> both compatible?
My understanding is that the Geronimo spec jars only exist as a
stopgap measure to allow Geronimo to be built without having to jump
through the Sun jar "coping" hoops (http://maven.apache.org/guides/
mini/guide-coping-with-sun-jars.html). Now that they are publicly
available, it seems clear to me that we should use the authoritative
jars whenever possible.
> And why not use something from a sister project to make it better?
I was operating under the assumption that Geronimo itself would move
to use these authoritative jars. Perhaps someone from the Geronimo
team can confirm or deny this?
>
> geir
>
>
> Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the
>>> java.net repository.
>> +1 for using the official JTA libraries, rather than the stopgap
>> Geronimo clones.
>> I'll update the pom.xml unless anyone objects.
>> On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You might find this of interest. The JDO project recently updated
>>> our jta dependencies.
>>>
>>> maven.repo.remote = http://www.ibiblio.org/maven,https://maven-
>>> repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository
>>>
>>> <dependencies>
>>> <dependency>
>>> - <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>> - <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
>>> - <version>1.0</version>
>>> + <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
>>> + <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
>>> + <version>1.1</version>
>>> </dependency>
>>> </dependencies>
>>>
>>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the
>>> java.net repository.
>>>
>>> The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any
>>> of the openjpa libraries.
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>
>>>
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I just gotta ask....
Why is one implementation "official" and another isn't if the are both
compatible?
And why not use something from a sister project to make it better?
geir
Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>
>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
>> repository.
>
> +1 for using the official JTA libraries, rather than the stopgap
> Geronimo clones.
>
> I'll update the pom.xml unless anyone objects.
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You might find this of interest. The JDO project recently updated our
>> jta dependencies.
>>
>> maven.repo.remote =
>> http://www.ibiblio.org/maven,https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository
>>
>>
>> <dependencies>
>> <dependency>
>> - <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>> - <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
>> - <version>1.0</version>
>> + <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
>> + <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
>> + <version>1.1</version>
>> </dependency>
>> </dependencies>
>>
>> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
>> repository.
>>
>> The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any of
>> the openjpa libraries.
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>
>>
>
>
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
> IIRC, the Geronimo jars are compiled with a later version of the JDK.
That does appears to be correct:
[20:44 chance mprudhom]$ java -cp ~/.m2/repository/org/apache/
geronimo/specs/geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec/1.0.1/geronimo-
jta_1.0.1B_spec-1.0.1.jar javax.transaction.SystemException
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError:
javax/transaction/SystemException (Unsupported major.minor version 48.0)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass0(Native Method)
Not a big problem for the whole OpenJPA project per se (since we
require 1.5 in order to support javax.persistence anyway), but if
someone were to want to depend on the 1.3 portions of the OpenJPA
Broker for their own persistence engine, then they wouldn't be able
to transitively rely on the Geronimo jars.
On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Does anyone have any comments on this point?
>
>>> The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any
>>> of the openjpa libraries.
>>>
> IIRC, the Geronimo jars are compiled with a later version of the JDK.
>
> Craig
>
> Craig Russell
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Does anyone have any comments on this point?
>> The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any
>> of the openjpa libraries.
>>
IIRC, the Geronimo jars are compiled with a later version of the JDK.
Craig
Craig Russell
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
RE: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com>.
> > This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
> > repository.
>
> +1 for using the official JTA libraries, rather than the stopgap
> Geronimo clones.
>
> I'll update the pom.xml unless anyone objects.
+1 for moving to JTA 1.1.
-Patrick
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
> repository.
+1 for using the official JTA libraries, rather than the stopgap
Geronimo clones.
I'll update the pom.xml unless anyone objects.
On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You might find this of interest. The JDO project recently updated
> our jta dependencies.
>
> maven.repo.remote = http://www.ibiblio.org/maven,https://maven-
> repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository
>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency>
> - <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> - <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
> - <version>1.0</version>
> + <groupId>javax.transaction</groupId>
> + <artifactId>transaction-api</artifactId>
> + <version>1.1</version>
> </dependency>
> </dependencies>
>
> This is the official JTA 1.1 jar that is available at the java.net
> repository.
>
> The library was compiled with JDK 1.3 so it can be used with any of
> the openjpa libraries.
>
> Craig Russell
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>