Excellent! Here's the change where we removed the JPA 2.0 support when the 3.1.x branch was created. We'd basically need to do this in reverse:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=943000 The other thing I can think of is that we'd want to use the javaee-api v6 module from trunk and remove the ejb31-experimental jar. I created a branch for you here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.2.x The versions are all 3.1.5-SNAPSHOT still, so we'll have to update that as well. Probably also have to update the maven targets to 1.6 instead of 1.5. I think this will make a lot of people very happy! So on the version numbers, is everyone ok with bumping trunk to a 4.0 and calling this new branch 3.2? If there are other opinions, now would be a good time to speak up! -David On Mar 2, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Thiago Veronezi wrote: > On it! It is a long way though... just got home and I'm downloading 3.1.4, > and then I will start to investigate it... ;O) > Any help on what should be changed is welcome. > []s, > Thiago. > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:02 PM, David Blevins <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mar 1, 2011, at 10:07 PM, David Blevins wrote: >> >>> How hard would it be to create a version of 3.1.4 that supports JPA 2.0 >> and would anyone be interested doing that? >> >> This got turned into an "a or b" discussion and I really meant it as an "a >> and b". >> >> Let me try and rephrase. Absolutely we need to get some form of 3.2 out >> the door -- alpha probably. Currently the Tomcat code is broken and there's >> a lot of fluctuation in the OWB integration. We can absolutely double-down >> and try twice as hard to get 3.2 working enough to release in any form. I >> plan to spend all of my personal time doing just that as I have to speak on >> it in April at JAX London before our get-together. Needless to say, I'm >> probably not going to get much sleep this month :) >> >> So that said, it isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of taking the code >> from 3.1.4, adding in the JPA 2.0 support, and releasing it as a completely >> stable OpenEJB version X. If anyone had time to work on that, I would be >> very supportive. It certainly would be a release with significant value. >> Were we to do that, we'd probably have to bump our version numbers ahead. >> Trunk to 4.0 and this new branch to 3.2. I've often wondered if we >> shouldn't be calling trunk 4.0 anyway. >> >> >> Any volunteers? >> >> >> I see one already. If we can get one or two more, we could probably pull >> it off. >> >> >> >> -David >> >>
