+1 ...because of the compliance reasons you outlined.
Michael Dick wrote:
+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!
>
>
>
