Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-jdo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 47471 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2006 04:25:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Oct 2006 04:25:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 67803 invoked by uid 500); 15 Oct 2006 04:25:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list jdo-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 67785 invoked by uid 99); 15 Oct 2006 04:25:03 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:25:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [62.36.20.208] (HELO out08.wanadoo.es) (62.36.20.208) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:25:01 -0700 Received: from [85.57.169.5] (helo=[192.168.0.25]) by out08.wanadoo.es with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1GYxU8-0000Yk-LX; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:20:25 +0200 From: Andy Jefferson To: JDO Expert Group , Apache JDO project Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:24:38 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <965A61D1-0739-4066-845B-3146D9777F8D@Sun.COM> <4531791B.5040501@tralfamadore.com> <013a01c6efed$a7b6f1f0$0500000a@ILANC> In-Reply-To: <013a01c6efed$a7b6f1f0$0500000a@ILANC> Organization: JPOX MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610150624.38700.andy@jpox.org> X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > I agree. After reading only the header of every option I though that 3 is > the best and 1 is the worst, but after reading the cons of 2 and 3 it seems > that 1 is the only feasible option. I am afraid that plans for 6-8 months > might eventually take much longer and because the project is under > resourced the amount of work should be a main consideration. Adding support > for sub queries for existing users of JDK 1.4 is a minor issue IMO, that > might be resolved as an extension to JDO 2.01 by vendors that are > interested. I still fail to see any significant change in the "amount of work" between 1 and 2. You have these features A. You have to support subqueries. B. You have to support the minor API updates for JDK1.3+ C. You have to support annotations and enums. With Option 1 you just dump it all (A,B,C) into a single SVN branch. With Option 2 you put A, B into branch 2.1 now, you then start branch 2.2 and put C into that (since it already has A,B). Work on C can start now. You don't have to start when A,B are done. I fail to see why the second part should take 6 months. What is there ? Splitting annotations into JDO and ORM ? I'll do that next week if someone is prepared to add it to the spec ;-) It only took 3 days to write them in the first place. So the *only* difference in amount of work is making 2 releases (and releasing a project should not be time consuming). The benefit of 2 is that you get a JDK1.3+ standard and a JDK1.5+ -- Andy