www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: QL support vs. full JSR implementation
Date Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:52:51 GMT
This is a great question.

First, which clause are you referring to?

On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:

> This is a legal question, but since it pertains to a JSR, I figured  
> I'd ask it here.
> We (the Cayenne project) have gone a long way in implementing a  
> compliant JPA provider (JSR-220), but can not finish it now for a  
> number of reasons, main one being that all the developers and power  
> users (i.e. the people who have enough knowledge to make it happen)  
> are very happy with the present Cayenne API and have no plans to  
> switch to JPA, hence no itch to scratch. Still we'd like to keep  
> some things on Cayenne end that were developed in the process:
> 1. We'd like to preserve the ability to run the JSR-220 EJBQL via  
> non-JPA Cayenne. Does this conflict in any way with the "License for  
> the Distribution of Compliant Implementations" clause in the JSR? I  
> would think no, as we don't implement any JSR interfaces or require  
> a JSR dependency. All we are doing is interpreting certain strings  
> in a certain way. But I figured I'd check.
> 2. Now going a step further, would there be a conflict with the JSR  
> license if we also start supporting lifecycle annotations (this  
> time, taken from javax.persistence package)? This one I am not so  
> sure about.
> Thoughts?
> Andrus

View raw message