openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: JTA 1.1 has been published
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:53:00 GMT

On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Just one question. What was the rationale for the name of the  
> branch for JTA
> .../geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jta_1.1_spec-1.0
>
> Why not
> .../geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jta-spec-1.1
>
> The spec is version 1.1. What does the 1.0 designation mean? And  
> without doing the hard work, can you tell me what the artifact name  
> is? Hopefully something that doesn't include the 1.0 designation...

Don't ask :)  I'd personally prefer what you mention or even groupId  
'org.apache', artifactId 'javax.transaction' and the version  
'1.1-01'.  But you know how it goes.

So the deal is <version>1.1</version> isn't used in case another  
version the jar needs to be released (common for javamail and  
activation, not common for pure interface/annotation/exception based  
specs).

Then the idea was to put the version in the artifactId leading to at  
least <artifactId>jta-1.1</artifact><version>1.0</version>, but then
 
maven is going to choke as the resulting jar 'jta-1.1-1.0.jar' will  
get interpreted as <artifactId>jta</artifactId><version>1.1-1.0</ 
version> when the jar name is parsed back into a maven dep name.

So then the underscores came into the picture giving us  
'<artifactId>jta_1.1</artifact><version>1.0</version>' which results
 
in jta_1.1-1.0.jar.  This is technically fine doesn't incur any maven  
issues, but some people thought it might be confusing so we tacked  
the word 'spec' on the end of it '<artifactId>jta_1.1_spec</ 
artifact><version>1.0</version>' and of course you have to brand it  
with Geronimo so the end result is '<artifactId>geronimo- 
jta_1.1_spec</artifact><version>1.0</version>'

Aren't you sorry you asked :)  That ought to teach ya!

To use it you declare you dep like this:
<dependency>
   <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
   <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.1_spec</artifactId>
   <version>1.0</version>
</dependency>

And depending on what you're doing you likely want to put  
<scope>provided</scope> after the version tag.

-David


> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:19 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and  
>>> compile with 1.3?
>>>
>>> These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so it's taken me a while to get this done, but I've got our  
>> JTA 1.1 and JPA specs ready for release and up for vote.
>>
>> The JPA spec jar had some compliance issues which I fixed:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-scm/200612.mbox/% 
>> 3c20061221041508.72F661A981A@eris.apache.org%3e
>>
>> The JTA spec jar was fine.
>>
>> Assuming those votes pass, I'll publish them both and the JTA jar  
>> with jdk 1.3 as requested -- ensuring the "goodness" is locked in :)
>>
>> Also let me formally invite/encourage you all to vote:
>>
>>   JTA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/ 
>> 200612.mbox/%3cE218ADD2-5B6A-4B35-879F-FAA156ABF4BE@visi.com%3e
>>   JPA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/ 
>> 200612.mbox/%3c00EA6A4E-0459-4503-AFD3-0BFC4ACE4372@visi.com%3e
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> 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!
>


Mime
View raw message