Donald, I believe that information is OSGi Alliance confidential that I can not discuss.
Thanks, ~Jason Warner On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org> wrote: > Still don't like the version decision by the EEG, but guess I'll have to > update the Geronimo spec and spin another release before the final > OpenJPA 2.0.0 release..... > > Jason, does the RFC 143 TCK check for expected/required metadata on the > jars? > > > -Donald > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Geronimo JPA 2.0 API > Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:04:45 +0000 > From: Ian Robinson <ianr...@googlemail.com> > Reply-To: aries-...@incubator.apache.org > To: aries-...@incubator.apache.org > > While there is a lot of discussion in the OSGi EEG about *future* > versioning policy for APIs defined outside OSGi, there was a final > decision for JPA in the OSGi 4.2 Enterprise Specification. Which is that > the JPA 2.0 API packages should be exported as version 1.1 with a 'jpa' > attribute indicating the spec version. For example: > Export-Package: javax.persistence; version=1.1; jpa=2.0 > And the RI will be changed in line with this. I believe the RI may also > export the API packages at 2.0 but the spec won't require this. > - Ian > > 1.1 API a JPA 2.0 provider Fi for the > > On 20/01/2010 21:48, David Jencks wrote: > > Isn't there a lot of discussion of how to connect jsr versions to > > package versions? I haven't seen any conclusions. To me it seems > > obvious that if the osgi package version isn't equal to the jsr spec > > version (with suitable transformations for stuff like 1.1-MR3 jsr > > versions) the osgi ee effort will be practically unusable. > > > > So, I think the geronimo jar is packaged correctly. > > > > thanks > > david jencks > > > > On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Timothy Ward wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> In testing I have found that the Geronimo JPA API is being exported > >> at the wrong version in its bundle manifest. As the JPA version 2.0 > >> API is compatible with version 1.0, the OSGi version for those > >> packages should be 1.1.0, not 2.0.0. > >> > >> What do people think the best solution for this is? We can either > >> raise a JIRA against Geronimo to get this fixed, or we can re-package > >> the API within Aries using the correct OSGi version. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> Tell us your greatest, weirdest and funniest Hotmail stories > >> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ > > > > > >
