openjpa-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Georgi Naplatanov <go...@oles.biz>
Subject Re: OpenJPA support for JPA 2.1: when?
Date Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:14:17 GMT
Hi Glen

It's not bad that in this project participate people form IBM, it's bad 
that there are not people from other companies. As far as I notice 
people form Oracle haven't participated in this project since OpenJPA 1.x.

Java belongs to big companies and in my country is very rarely some 
small company to use something written in Java except for products what 
are ready for use in their business.

How is the situation in your country ?

Best regards
Georgi

On 06/17/2013 05:49 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
> One concern I have for OpenJPA is that the vast majority of committers
> are IBM or Oracle people, which can give pause to people thinking about
> contributing (i.e., the impression that committership is closed to
> IBMers or Oracle people alone), that they may be better off submitting
> patches to another Apache project instead. Apache Xalan may have been in
> a similar situation in the past as virtually all committers were IBMers,
> causing one to think the project is a closed shop and not getting many
> external contributions or new people to help out as a result. Without an
> open community, you may not get the resources to implement JPA 2.1,
> similar to Xalan's resource problems in implementing XSLT 2.0 today.
>
> Glen
>
> On 06/13/2013 10:52 PM, Matthew Adams wrote:
>> responses inline...
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Good question, Matthew. This has been brought up a couple of different
>>> times...
>>>
>>> http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/JPA-2-1-td7215602.html
>>>
>>> http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-JPA-2-1-spec-implementation-td7581978.html
>>>
>>>
>>> So, there's been some interest, but not an overwhelming interest. Not to
>>> the point of creating a team, figuring out the work effort, and
>>> divvying up
>>> the responsibilities. Contrast that with the JPA 2.0 development effort,
>>> and there was overwhelming community support and participation. So, I
>>> think there are a handful of us interested in a JPA 2.1
>>> implementation, but
>>> more participation is required.
>>>
>>> Pardon my surprise, but that sounds just plain bad. That kind of
>> sentiment threatens to scare users away, IMHO. I have always held OpenJPA
>> in high esteem as one of the major, credible implementations because it's
>> always been up to date WRT to the specs (and, let's not kid ourselves, it
>> hails from Kodo JDO). Frankly, the specs don't move very fast, and at
>> least previews of them are available well in advance of the actual GA
>> releases.
>>
>>
>>> Pinaki has went so far to create a sandbox and start experimenting
>>> with an
>>> implementation. Again, he's a one-man show and can't do it all. Well, he
>>> probably could, but it would require a bit of work... :-)
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/sandboxes/21
>>>
>>> Well, I would have expected a team of folks on this, not just one. After
>> all, Pinaki was arguing for expanded fetch plan capabilities in the JPA
>> expert group based on OpenJPA's current capabilities -- and rightfully
>> so,
>> I might add.
>>
>> Maybe we should resurrect that [DISCUSSION] topic
>>
>>
>> I think you should. Especially with any support customers you or the
>> OpenJPA project sponsors may have.
>>
>>
>>> but I'm curious what
>>> features of JPA 2.1 are of most interest to you? Or, is it just a matter
>>> of being consistent with the latest specification?
>>>
>>> One feature that's worth its development weight is fetch plans, which
>> OpenJPA, thanks to its current fetch plan implementation, can implement
>> fairly quickly. Further, OpenJPA's fetch plan support exceeds JPA's
>> requirement with fetch depth and recursion depth!
>>
>> Additionally, I just happen to be writing an advanced JPA course right
>> now,
>> and customers of this course want to use the JPA implementation in the
>> course that they have settled on in their organization. It just so
>> happens
>> that the maiden voyage of this course covers JPA 2.1 and is for a
>> customer
>> that is also an OpenJPA customer. And they're large. Now, I have to tell
>> them "Sorry, OpenJPA doesn't have plans to implement JPA 2.1". Can you
>> say, "Bye bye, customer"? EclipseLink & DataNucleus already implement
>> 2.1,
>> and Hibernate's implementation is in progress. If not for the technical
>> reasons I gave above, then the need to remain competitive should be
>> enough
>> to have you assemble a crack 2.1 team ASAP. Don't forget about BatooJPA
>> making noise (claiming top performance, although I take that with a few
>> grains of salt) and the NoSQL JPA implementations (DataNucleus, ObjectDB,
>> and Kundera), not to mention the Spring Data projects. Like it or not,
>> you
>> are beset on all sides with competition.
>>
>> Just my $0.02, which might just be worth around $0.029 with the interest
>> I've accumulated since working with JDO- & JPA-style lightweight
>> persistence since 1996 and with the expert groups since 2000.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Matthew Adams <matthew@matthewadams.me
>>>> wrote:
>>>> When will OpenJPA support JPA 2.1?
>>>>
>>>> -matthew
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> mailto:matthew@matthewadams.me <matthew@matthewadams.me>
>>>> skype:matthewadams12
>>>> googletalk:matthew@matthewadams.me
>>>> http://matthewadams.me
>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewadams
>>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message