Not everyone thinks Glassfish should have separately shipped the spec jars...It's important to get our input into the Glassfish open source project.

Begin forwarded message:

Hi Craig,

Craig L Russell wrote:


On Jun 14, 2006, at 2:27 PM, anonymous wrote:

Hi Craig,

You are talking from a theoretical perspective - it might be a

good idea (we went with another good idea) to have a separate

downloadable of persistence-api.jar.

I'm not talking theory at all. People just don't expect spec api jars  to include the reference implementation as well. "It's just an  implementation" and doesn't belong in the same jar. Look at any other  spec jar file.

They do. This is how JavaMail is distributed.

I was talking from the history of how it happened - why persistence- api.jar

appeared in the maven repository and what that process was called.

At a rush to fulfill Eduardo's request to push our persistence impl

jars to the maven repository (called "mavenizing" by Eduardo and

everybody else after (?) him) at the last minute before J1, we

pushed all 3 jars separately. While it's too late to remove

persistence-api.jar (we'll look silly keeping only 1 - at some point

outdated - version, and the community already reference it), we

are looking at fixing toplink-essentials.jar to include persistence API

in order to mirror the downloadable version.

The maven naming convention is robust enough to handle different  versions of the same artifact. If you're looking at having a  maintenance release, you could e.g. name the artifact persistence- api-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT.jar. Then, maven will automatically get the latest  snapshot that was pushed to the site.

That's why I don't want to explain why there might not be newer versions,

if we stop pushing persistence-api.jar out.



Craig Russell

Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System

408 276-5638

P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!