On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Pinaki Poddar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What relevance does this possible EG sourced jar have to this > > discussion? My understanding was that you wouldn't use it even if it > > existed. > > If JPA EG has released source for JPA 2.0 API, then it provides a > checkpoint > for source API we may create independently. Even if the Expert Group would provide source, we (OpenJPA, Geronimo, etc) would not want to use it due to licensing concerns. We have to base our API code off of the specification itself. That is, create the source parts based off the text in the specification. > > > I have no problem applying patches promptly and pushing snapshots. > OK let us try one iteration with a small patch to see how does that this > process go. I am attaching a patch for new Criteria API definitions. > http://n2.nabble.com/file/n1511117/jpa2.0-update-1.0-patch.txt > jpa2.0-update-1.0-patch.txt > > This patch is an overlay over > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/src/main/ > Although David might be a nice guy and accept this patch, the normal process would be just like somebody contributing to OpenJPA -- you would attach a patch to the JIRA issue. Based on this string of notes, it looks like Jeremy had created JIRA Issue GERONIMO-4410 ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4410). So, I would think you should post the patch to that JIRA Issue. Personally, I would rather see us develop the first cut at OpenJPA first and then post our tested version to the Geronimo Issue. We could easily create the first cut in our "sandbox", ensure everything builds and tests, and then provide the patch to Geronimo. Thanks, Kevin > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/Updating-the-JPA-spec-jar-for-JPA-2.0-tp1482013p1511117.html > Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
