Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of techhusky@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.250 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=t5BWiN1poI0AF3WeHMFnQ0Hg0Nn2MZoC9ugrsXGlc/G4G/MKGHuoHl/MCeOHn1HChT
         jrU1fgteJ5eNMUS344htqEMJqxPrRsCX/A7MjZGGh2XN5u10X+Zy2imaIFIukTE+6IW3
         rKFaVcgCC7vLjYaTq/aCmtMbIyhOE8QNRtCtY=
Message-ID: <c4a1048f0811130753l188c8fdfq3726fd6f8be783bf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:53:58 -0600
From: "Jeremy Bauer" <techhusky@gmail.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
In-Reply-To: <c4a1048f0811111241v40d5dfa5y173d50e226eda942@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_23139_21160433.1226591638474"
References: <72c1350f0811111050i113121farb5e199ca9b2f8ba4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <249696.69771.qm@web27806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	 <c4a1048f0811111241v40d5dfa5y173d50e226eda942@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_23139_21160433.1226591638474
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Any news on this item?  Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable?
 We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact
published to the maven repo asap.
-Jeremy

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer <techhusky@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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!
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

------=_Part_23139_21160433.1226591638474--