geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Bauer" <techhu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:25:17 GMT
Sounds great.  I'll open a JIRA. Thanks!
-Jeremy

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
> I don't think there's any argument about the artifactId of
> geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec and version of 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT for the new work, so as
> soon as you supply a patch I can apply it and push a snapshot.  I have no
> objection to the other ideas but they won't make any immediate difference to
> anything.  I thought we could wait a bit for other comments.
>
> If you open a geronimo jira and assign it to me for patches I'll be
> reminded on each new patch :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
> Any news on this item?  Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable?
>  We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact
> published to the maven repo asap.
> -Jeremy
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer <techhusky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to
>> handle commits.
>> The naming issue is quite a quandary.  Would this approach (or derivation
>> of) work?  a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but
>> may be good for the sake of completeness.  b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0
>> spec work.  c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to
>> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact.
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>>>
>>> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
>>> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
>>> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know
>>> about ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
>>> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Michael Dick <mikedd@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>>
>>> > Von: Michael Dick <mikedd@apache.org>
>>> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
>>> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
>>> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
>>> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
>>> > <Craig.Russell@sun.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >  --- David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
>>> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> 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.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Imho the current
>>> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>>> > >> with a
>>> > >> <version> 1.0
>>> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
>>> > doesn't hinder us ;)
>>> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
>>> > do not have any problem
>>> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
>>> > groupId since this references EJB
>>> > >> and not JPA.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
>>> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>> > >> and we're done.
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
>>> > >
>>> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
>>> > had gotten to the 3.0
>>> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
>>> > >
>>> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
>>> > Review Draft stage)
>>> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
>>> > seems completely
>>> > > correct.
>>> > >
>>> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
>>> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
>>> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
>>> > if we change the artifact
>>> > > id or group id (again).
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
>>> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
>>> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
>>> > specs though.  I have
>>> > no strong feelings either way though.
>>> >
>>> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
>>> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
>>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
>>> > finalizes
>>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
>>> >
>>> > -mike
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Craig
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
>>> > the fact, that there are 2
>>> > >> specs online:
>>> > >>
>>> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
>>> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
>>> > and this doesn't contain the
>>> > >> jpa spec anyway.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
>>> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> txs and LieGrue,
>>> > >> strub
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > > 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