On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi David,
Just one question. What was the rationale for the name of the
branch for JTA
.../geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jta_1.1_spec-1.0
Why not
.../geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jta-spec-1.1
The spec is version 1.1. What does the 1.0 designation mean? And
without doing the hard work, can you tell me what the artifact name
is? Hopefully something that doesn't include the 1.0 designation...
Don't ask :) I'd personally prefer what you mention or even groupId
'org.apache', artifactId 'javax.transaction' and the version
'1.1-01'. But you know how it goes.
So the deal is <version>1.1</version> isn't used in case another
version the jar needs to be released (common for javamail and
activation, not common for pure interface/annotation/exception based
specs).
Then the idea was to put the version in the artifactId leading to at
least <artifactId>jta-1.1</artifact><version>1.0</version>, but then
maven is going to choke as the resulting jar 'jta-1.1-1.0.jar' will
get interpreted as <artifactId>jta</artifactId><version>1.1-1.0</
version> when the jar name is parsed back into a maven dep name.
So then the underscores came into the picture giving us
'<artifactId>jta_1.1</artifact><version>1.0</version>' which results
in jta_1.1-1.0.jar. This is technically fine doesn't incur any maven
issues, but some people thought it might be confusing so we tacked
the word 'spec' on the end of it '<artifactId>jta_1.1_spec</
artifact><version>1.0</version>' and of course you have to brand it
with Geronimo so the end result is '<artifactId>geronimo-
jta_1.1_spec</artifact><version>1.0</version>'
Aren't you sorry you asked :) That ought to teach ya!
To use it you declare you dep like this:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.1_spec</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
And depending on what you're doing you likely want to put
<scope>provided</scope> after the version tag.
-David
Thanks,
Craig
On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:19 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
When can Geronimo ship an upgrade to JTA 1.1 that we can use and
compile with 1.3?
These are "goodness" that I think OpenJPA can use.
Ok, so it's taken me a while to get this done, but I've got our
JTA 1.1 and JPA specs ready for release and up for vote.
The JPA spec jar had some compliance issues which I fixed:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-scm/200612.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The JTA spec jar was fine.
Assuming those votes pass, I'll publish them both and the JTA jar
with jdk 1.3 as requested -- ensuring the "goodness" is locked in :)
Also let me formally invite/encourage you all to vote:
JTA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/
200612.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JPA vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/
200612.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-David
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
