Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 33788 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2010 12:31:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2010 12:31:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 98382 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2010 12:31:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 98320 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2010 12:31:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 98313 invoked by uid 99); 9 Apr 2010 12:31:35 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:31:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,HK_RANDOM_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rickmcg@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.27 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.92.27] (HELO qw-out-2122.google.com) (74.125.92.27) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:31:26 +0000 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so1041138qwi.25 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:31:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rcADimlmjXI3m+88C9+K66RrHZTztoSZWsBCKeYhAIw=; b=Tr4VA0vXfHB4CpMbMx15j5gBd1TRr7L+hAToeFjrenA+fM0jIrZTkUd1J4R9G3gd+R nULhVPSi/aRJ1pzpB61SS2OvXS5c8akoNnExebejV/MtcqiMl16UECade+aBJNnoXN+g +aH61dxX0yHpUa5FvZw15Q8syj/hmupd5nHrk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YRjYGScFxdg+lW9fm5pCjzGFVGjJ+gzsTrc5BR26Q3RbKG3Uci3LFIKeB2aw4bkafX soRZXNJDQgmJADZrXpIko4LRVXkJo4mBQP7nfp17RDWZ94rfLNoJSKVPTRGhOoqmFC+R qxBpIt5gZPICLVZGz3GUZqkK/uzOEdPzG7+ds= Received: by 10.229.91.16 with SMTP id k16mr2638295qcm.40.1270816263124; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (24-151-82-15.dhcp.nwtn.ct.charter.com [24.151.82.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x34sm1744411qce.3.2010.04.09.05.31.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BBF1E03.7070602@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:30:59 -0400 From: Rick McGuire Reply-To: rickmcg@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geronimo Dev Subject: Geronimo specs and OSGi package export versions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org There's one more bit that needs to be resolved before the Geronimo spec packages can be released, and that's the issue of package export versions in the different specs. There are a couple of issues involved: 1) Explicitly specified version numbers in the enterprise specification 2) A current proposal under discussion for semantic package versioning at the OSGi Alliance. In category 1), the only hit is to the JPA spec. The spec currently is exporting the javax.persistence* packages as version 2.0, but the enterprise spec specifically requires 1.1. Unfortunately, we've already released a version exporting as 2.0, and that's the version that OpenJPA is using to build their bundles. For category 2, the current proposal would use the java ee 5 numbers as a baseline and increment the minor version number. So, for example, jaxb 2.1 would become jaxb 2.2 for the java ee 6 version, which matches what we're already doing. It appears the only package we need to change is servlet, which would switch from 3.0 to 2.6. We have not made an official release of the servlet 3.0 spec yet, so switching this to 2.6 will have a lower impact. The JPA spec is a problem. Just changing the export from 2.0 to 1.1 causes the geronimo build to break because the OpenJPA bundles are looking for version 2.0 of these packages. One solution would be to package these bundles using the desired package imports, but I'm concerned that applications built against the current OpenJPA version would not function correctly when deployed on Geronimo because of the version mismatche. I suspect the Aries samples would have this problem, for example. I did a little experiment, and was able to get Geronimo to build again by having the bundle export multiple package versions. I think this will work as a short-term fix until OpenJPA releases a version that imports the 1.1 version of the packages. Rick