Craig L Russell wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 2:27 PM, anonymous wrote:
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outdated - version, and the community already reference it), we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.
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!