exactly! about the build better if it can be java 6 to avoid surprises we got with java 8 for instance which introduces some backward incompatibility (a bit hidden but present).
Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-05-30 22:34 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter <[email protected]>: > Yeah, I see your point. Maybe it would be better to have 2.4.x with ASM 5 > to support Java 8 and then make trunk (2.5.0) be mainline development for > JPA 2.1. Let's not worry about the work effort at this point, let's just > discuss what's the right answer. > > Even if we wanted to cut a 2.4.0 release, we'd have to revert the build > environment from Java 7 back to Java 6 for your needs. Is that right? Or, > would the build of OpenJPA with Java 7 be okay? > > So, we would end up with... > > 2.3.x - ASM 4 with Java 6 (Pre-Java 8 usage) > 2.4.x - ASM 5 with Java 6 (Useful for TomEE and maybe other OpenJPA > environments wishing to use Java 8) > 2.5.0 - ASM 5 with Java 7 (trunk, mainline development for JPA 2.1) > > Is this accurate? > > Kevin > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hum, not easy then. > > Creating a 2.3.1 with ASM 5 to support java 8 is quite a significant > change > > to just change the latest digit, isn't it? > > From OpenJPA point of view, it's just a dep update with some minor > changes > > as far as I understood, but I would maybe increment the minor digit > > instead. > > > > Anyway, I agree with Romain. We can still fork in order to remain Java > EE 6 > > compliant but of course, il would prefer to stick with Apache OpenJPA > > project. > > > > JLouis > > > > > > 2014-05-30 21:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter <[email protected]>: > > > > > > Would be awesome to have a 2.4.0 still Java EE 6 compliant, which is > > > mainly > > > a maintenant release and target Java EE 7 (ie. JPA 2.1) for a 2.5.0 or > > 3.0, > > > > > > The 2.3.x stream is for JPA 2.0 level of functionality as well as Java > 6. > > > Any additional development and maintenance for JPA 2.0 and Java 6 > should > > be > > > targetted for this 2.3.x service stream. > > > > > > The 2.4.0 (trunk) stream was meant for JPA 2.1 and Java 7. This is the > > > main stream for new development. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Side note, we are WebProfile 1.0 (Java EE 6) so we cannot embedded > Java > > > EE > > > > 7 API (because it's checked in the certification tests). > > > > Would be awesome to have a 2.4.0 still Java EE 6 compliant, which is > > > mainly > > > > a maintenant release and target Java EE 7 (ie. JPA 2.1) for a 2.5.0 > or > > > 3.0, > > > > dunno. > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > We are waiting for the 2.4.0 to support Java 8. > > > > > That's the only library missing to release (OpenWebBeans, XBean > have > > > been > > > > > released last week). > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 16:58 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Romain, > > > > >> I can't speak for everybody on our dev list, but I don't have the > > > cycles > > > > >> to > > > > >> create an OpenJPA release just for TomEE. It sounds like we might > > > need > > > > >> more TomEE developers with OpenJPA karma to help out in this > > regard... > > > > >> Hint, hint... :-) > > > > >> > > > > >> Just curious, which stream are you looking for a release from? > The > > > > 2.3.x > > > > >> service stream, or the 2.4.0 trunk stream? If the latter, then > you > > > > >> realize > > > > >> that this has been moved to require Java 7 in preparation for JPA > > 2.1 > > > > and > > > > >> the rest of Java EE? Does that matter to you? If you are looking > > > for a > > > > >> 2.3.x release, then I still have two outstanding Infra JIRAs for > > doing > > > > the > > > > >> nightly code and doc builds... > > > > >> > > > > >> Sorry that I can't be of more help, but we've had a few OpenJPA > > > > developers > > > > >> move onto other "day jobs" and their time on OpenJPA has dropped > off > > > > >> considerably... Just too much work for the people left... > > > > >> > > > > >> Kevin > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi guys > > > > >> > > > > > >> > we asked few weeks ago if we could hope a release for tomee one > > and > > > > you > > > > >> > said us to fork but as we took a bit more time to prepare the > > > release > > > > as > > > > >> > expected I ask again the question hoping something changed: do > you > > > > >> think an > > > > >> > openjpa release is close? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Our constraints are to let tomee be out in june so openjpa > release > > > > >> should > > > > >> > be on vote next week (+- few days). > > > > >> > > > > > >> > wdyt? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Louis > > >
