On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
OpenJPA & Geronimo devs,
Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA.
OpenJPA
builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move
forward
to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs.
Like EJB
3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent
updates
to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to
questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs
to JPA
2.0.
IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo.
+1
Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not
have the proper license.
Ideally, the
Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development,
with the
OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern
with that
approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo
repository.
Not yet, but surely this can be fixed.
OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do
code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden
on the
Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for
OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA
project to
temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current
Geronimo
spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major
revisions
and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published
in the
Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others)
using the
spec jar provided by Geronimo.
Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or
three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the
portion of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable
tests to make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this
should be straightforward.
Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before
stability? I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it
turns into an actual problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for
whoever writes the 2.0 classes but it might end up being quicker than
trying to deal with changing svn permissions. I have no particular
objection to doing this but.... I'm happy to apply patches quickly but
have no clue what to do about svn permissions and worry it might
involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc etc.
I've started off with
svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec
and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the
maven version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've
seen require that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I
didn't check the jpa spec specificially).
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.
thanks
david jencks
Craig
Thoughts/ideas/opinions?
-Jeremy (OpenJPA committer)
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
