Guys, just to let you know, Reverse the 943000 changes is the easy part, but the ejb31-experimental is harder than I though. :O) I'm still on it and I'll continue the changes this evening. []s, Thiago.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:18 AM, David Blevins <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > >> > >> > >
