Hi Jeremy,
I don't think there's any argument about the artifactId of geronimo-
jpa_2.0_spec and version of 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT for the new work, so as
soon as you supply a patch I can apply it and push a snapshot. I have
no objection to the other ideas but they won't make any immediate
difference to anything. I thought we could wait a bit for other
comments.
If you open a geronimo jira and assign it to me for patches I'll be
reminded on each new patch :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008:
> Von: Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >
> > --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
