+ 1 This sounds like a good plan to me. Now I am a bit biased here in that our company is a committed user of Cayenne 3.0 classic mode.
regards Malcolm Edgar On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: > >> Since there is no copyright over the concept of JPA itself, could this be >> satisfied by simply ensuring that nothing mentions that Cayenne is JPA >> compliant or partially-compliant? > > It's worse than that. If you read the license in the JPA PDF, we are not > allowed to ship anything that implements javax.persistence interfaces unless > we are certified. > > >>> * (plus lots of smaller features and bug fixes) : >> >> * How about the generified SelectQuery? I know it was discussed to death >> and there was no 100% clean method, but it might be nice to get in given 3.0 >> is the Java 5 release. > > I started playing with it and got stuck a bit... Didn't like the stuff that > came out. I am +1 on having it in 3.0 if we get the design that we like. > >> Maybe now is a good time to create 4.0 and 3.1 milestones and start >> triaging tasks into those? > > You mean like a Wiki page (not an SVN branch)? Yeah sure we can do that. > > >>> * We EOL 1.2 (SourceForge) and 2.0 (Apache) branches. >> >> Might be good to support the 2.0 branch for critical bug fixes for 12 >> months? Doesn't look like there will be any given its current stable nature, >> but it might create confidence. > > Fine with me. As long as we EOL 1.2 and don't have to deal with SourceForge > anymore. > >> I suspect given your goals above, a few beta releases, etc we might be >> aiming for a final 3.0 release toward the end of the year. > > I won't be giving any time predictions, but I think end of 2008 is likely > too optimistic. Maybe in the future we'll implement better release scope > management to ensure shorter cycles, but now we have too many loose ends. > > Andrus >
