geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <mik...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:42:10 GMT
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>  Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>
>>  OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
>>> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA.  OpenJPA
>>> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar.  As we move
>>> forward
>>> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs.  Like EJB
>>> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
>>> updates
>>> to the spec API until the final draft is published.   This leads to
>>> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA
>>> 2.0.
>>>
>>> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not have
>> the proper license.
>>
>>  Ideally, the
>>> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with
>>> the
>>> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements.  The concern with
>>> that
>>> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
>>> repository.
>>>
>>
>> Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
>>
>>  OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
>>> code commits and builds of the spec jar.  This may become a burden on the
>>> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
>>> OpenJPA development.   Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to
>>> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
>>> Geronimo
>>> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux.  Major revisions
>>> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in
>>> the
>>> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the
>>> spec jar provided by Geronimo.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or three
>> OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of the
>> repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make sure that
>> we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward.
>>
>
> Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability?
>  I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an actual
> problem.  This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the 2.0
> classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with changing
> svn permissions.  I have no particular objection to doing this but.... I'm
> happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn
> permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc
> etc.


I agree. There may be a fair number of changes at the beginning but it
*should* calm down when the spec finalizes (famous last words).

When / if it becomes a problem (ie David is tired of us bothering him :-) )
we can always fork a copy to the OpenJPA project with the intent of merging
back when it's in less of a state of flux (or on a regular basis).


> I've started off with
>
> svn cp
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec
>
> and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2.  I set the maven
> version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen require
> that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I didn't check the jpa
> spec specificially).
>
>
> This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be
> part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0.  Any
> suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated.
>

I think the ideal fix is to copy geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec to
geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec and announce that we're going to remove
geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec at some point in the future. There's some precedent
for moving a maven artifact - moving ant:ant to org.apache.ant:ant comes to
mind, so it might be permissable.

I don't know if there's a good way to properly announce it to users
(potentially a superset of say geronimo-users) ,  I suspect we can learn
from what the ant team did and communicate the change in the same way.

Best Regards,

-mike


>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
>>>
>>> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message