openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Improving the Maven story for GlassFish
Date Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:13:52 GMT

On Jun 19, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

>>> I meant that there isn't much IP in the spec jars, so it's
>> basically
>>> wasted time if the spec jars are available under a
>> compatible license.
>> Agreed, but what if Geronimo already has them?
> Because although there isn't much IP in the spec jars, there is
> behavior. There are a handful of classes. IOW, they're not just
> interfaces. I'd rather we keep consistent behavior, rather than  
> rely on
> the completeness of the TCK. Without a compelling reason to use
> something other than the Glassfish ones, I can't imagine why we'd  
> choose
> to do anything else.

My point of view on this is that it is highly desirable for there to  
be at least 2 spec jars, to try to  nail down what needs to be  
specified better in the spec as far as the content of the api.  For  
this reason I think we should use geronimo's copy.  To me the ideal  
is that the spec actually specifies the behavior of the api and this  
is much more likely to happen if there are competing implementations.

david jencks

> -Patrick
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> _
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may  
> contain
> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and   
> affiliated
> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted   
> and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the  
> individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended  
> recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return  
> this
> by email and then delete it.

View raw message