geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: JPA Plugin Status
Date Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:10:12 GMT

Why do you need to have vendor code?  Why can't this be a bit more
dynamic?  Long term, I think its a bad idea to have to declare a vendor
wrapped API when our competitors just need to dump the provider jars in
a directory somewhere or include them in a deployment.  Basically,
anyone who wants to use a provider that we haven't supported has to
write vendor G-only code...right?  If this is the case, I think that is
a bit burdensome.  Thoughts?


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> The code for the app-managed-JPA-for-web-apps plugin is up at SVN
> So far, it's just got a TopLink provider, but if people want to copy
> that to create providers for Cayenne or OpenJPA or whatever, that
> would be great.  It basically just needs to have a customized name and
> ClassPath, though I'm assuming any provider we integrate with will be
> compatible with the Geronimo JPA spec JAR (currently
> org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/1.0-SNAPSHOT/jar)
> If you try to build and run this, you'll be held up by a couple things:
> * It needs the latest car-maven-plugin, and I'm not sure whether
> Jason has pushed a fresh snapshot since the last changes to it
> * It needs Geronimo 1.1 CARs in the M2 repo, and Matt has said
> posting those is on his to-do list
> * It only runs in Geronimo 1.1.1 due to reference resolution bugs in
> G 1.1, and currently the G 1.1.1 build is broken
> But if you get past all that (or comment out the plugins child from
> the main POM to avoid the first two issues) and run your server under
> Java 5, you can deploy web apps using JPA.  :)
> My goal is to have a release of this plugin with sufficient user
> documentation when G 1.1.1 is released.  It would be great to have
> some open source JPA providers for that release too.
> I also started talking to David B about the JPA work being done in
> OpenEJB, and I think we're agreed that we probably don't need two such
> plugins for G 1.1.x, so hopefully we can work toward a unification as
> we move forward.
> Thanks,
>     Aaron

View raw message