+1 On 2/10/07, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 On 2/9/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > My vote is as much related to dissatisfaction with the maven repo > that is used by glassfish as with the time it takes to get anything > done through official channels. > > Craig > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > > > > It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one > > from https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/ > > javax.persistence/jars/persistence-api-1.0.jar) is not actually the > > final version of the spec: there are some minor (and binary- > > compatible) changes (some annotations don't have runtime retention, > > for example), but they are enough to prevent us from passing all > > the compatibility tests we need. > > > > The Geronimo API jar (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/ > > org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/geronimo- > > jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar) is compliant, as far as I can tell. > > > > How do people feel about changing the dependency from persistence- > > api-1.0.jar to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0.jar? I've run through all > > our tests, and they pass with the Geronimo version. This would have > > the added advantage of unifying our spec jars to all be using the > > Geronimo versions. > > > > +1 indicates that you approve of the change > > -1 indicated that you disagree that the change should be made > > > > > > > > > > > > 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! > > >
-- -Michael Dick
