Hi Jean-Louis, I think I need your help... this task is messing with my brain... :O)
first, we have three important revisions here: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=943000 (Reverted back to JPA 1.0) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=946783 (pulled out the ejb31-api-experimental dependency) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1076527 (New branch for JPA 2.0 and Java 6 support) I don' understand what happened with the " openejb/branches/openejb-3.1.x/deps/javaee-api/pom.xml<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openejb/branches/openejb-3.1.x/deps/javaee-api/pom.xml?view=markup&pathrev=943000>" file. I can see one change on this file here ( http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openejb/branches/openejb-3.1.x/deps/javaee-api/pom.xml?r1=943000&r2=942999&pathrev=943000) but I can't find the real file in the new 3.2 branch. If we check this change here ( http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openejb/trunk/openejb3/pom.xml?r1=946783&r2=946782&pathrev=946783), we can see the "deps" module. Could you help me? tkx, Thiago. On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Thiago Veronezi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >
