openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Bauer" <techhu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:41:18 GMT
Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to
handle commits.
The naming issue is quite a quandary.  Would this approach (or derivation
of) work?  a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but
may be good for the sake of completeness.  b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0
spec work.  c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to
geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact.
-Jeremy

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:

> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT!
>
> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle
> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases.
> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know
> about ;)
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html
> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/
>
>
> --- Michael Dick <mikedd@apache.org> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
>
> > Von: Michael Dick <mikedd@apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
> > An: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
> > <Craig.Russell@sun.com>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >
> > >  --- David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> > >>
> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the
> > jpa 1.0 spec
> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I
> > gave it a spec
> > >>> version number of 3.0.  Any suggestions about
> > what to do
> > >>> about this would be appreciated.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Do we really need to change anything?
> > >>
> > >> Imho the current
> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > >> with a
> > >> <version> 1.0
> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it
> > doesn't hinder us ;)
> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we
> > do not have any problem
> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the
> > groupId since this references EJB
> > >> and not JPA.
> > >>
> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use
> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > >> and we're done.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do.
> > >
> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which
> > had gotten to the 3.0
> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
> > >
> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public
> > Review Draft stage)
> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT
> > seems completely
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > So even though it's confusing because of the
> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more
> > if we change the artifact
> > > id or group id (again).
> > >
> >
> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that
> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec
> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo
> > specs though.  I have
> > no strong feelings either way though.
> >
> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so
> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or
> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec
> > finalizes
> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair.
> >
> > -mike
> >
> >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is
> > the fact, that there are 2
> > >> specs online:
> > >>
> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/
> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/
> > >>
> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now,
> > and this doesn't contain the
> > >> jpa spec anyway.
> > >>
> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me
> > (I'm not a geronimized one)?
> > >>
> > >> txs and LieGrue,
> > >> strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Craig L Russell
> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> > http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message