Hi Christian, Yes, this is a mess, and yes, it is hard. The JSR process has done a good job of making versioning as hard as possible!
For some extra help, bnd will do the contract import for your consumer if you use the -contract instruction (see http://bnd.bndtools.org/chapters/220-contracts.html). Contracts are the only reliable way for clients to deal with the inconsistent JSR versioning policies. I’m writing the following section because I know that Christian is also an implementor, and so needs to work out how to deal with the JPA provider side too. The information below is not needed by people who just want to use JPA in their applications. Contracts work well for consuming the API in a client, but the requirement for providers that want substitutability (or just to use an external API bundle) is harder and I don’t think bnd helps much. To be substitutable you would need to write the contract so that you import the correct version, but not any version higher than that (otherwise clients may get NoSuchMethodErrors when trying to call API from higher versions. The following is my best guess at how to make the maximum number of things work! The requirement filter looks very odd, and is expressed as follows (&(osgi.contract=JavaJPA)(version=2.1)(version<=2.1)): For substitutable JPA 2.1 that works with current EclipseLink and Hibernate releases the metadata needs to be: Export-Package:javax.persistence; javax.persistence.criteria; javax.persistence.metamodel; javax.persistence.spi;version=2.1.0;jpa=2.1 Import-Package: javax.persistence, javax.persistence.criteria, javax.persistence.metamodel, javax.persistence.spi Require-Capability: osgi.contract;filter:=“(&(osgi.contract=JavaJPA)(version=2.1)(version<=2.1))” Provide-Capability: osgi.contract:osgi.contract=JavaJPA;version:Version=2.1;uses:=“javax.persistence,javax.persistence.criteria,javax.persistence.metamodel,javax.persistence.spi”, osgi.contract:osgi.contract=JavaJPA;version:Version=2.0;uses:=“javax.persistence,javax.persistence.criteria,javax.persistence.metamodel,javax.persistence.spi”, osgi.contract:osgi.contract=JavaJPA;version:Version=1.0;uses:=“javax.persistence,javax.persistence.spi” For substitutable JPA 2.0 that works with OpenJPA, and older EclipseLink and Hibernate releases: Export-Package:javax.persistence; javax.persistence.criteria; javax.persistence.metamodel; javax.persistence.spi;version=2.0.0;jpa=2.0 Import-Package: javax.persistence, javax.persistence.criteria, javax.persistence.metamodel, javax.persistence.spi Require-Capability: osgi.contract;filter:=“(&(osgi.contract=JavaJPA)(version=2.0)(version<=2.0))” Provide-Capability: osgi.contract:osgi.contract=JavaJPA;version:Version=2.0;uses:=“javax.persistence,javax.persistence.criteria,javax.persistence.metamodel,javax.persistence.spi”, osgi.contract:osgi.contract=JavaJPA;version:Version=1.0;uses:=“javax.persistence,javax.persistence.spi” This is what Aries JPA and Transaction Control need to do when providing the JPA API, and it will be described in the upcoming JPA Service update. Note that all of this will probably still not help with JPA providers that have even crazier import ranges, but we do what we can. Regards, Tim > On 15 Sep 2016, at 05:15, David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Christian, > > The portable contracts define how you should do your imports with JSR-based > APIs, since they often don't follow semantic versioning. What should really > be done is: > > Import-Package: javax.persistence, javax.persistence.criteria, > javax.persistence.metamodel, javax.persistence.spi > Require-Capability: osgi.contract; > filter:="(&(osgi.contract=JavaJPA)(version=2.1))" > > Note that the Import-Package in this case has no version associated with the > packages. This is because there is no agreed semantic versioning associated > with these packages. So providers of the JPA package can version these using > whatever schema they want. > Consumers bind to the specific version of JPA via the Require-Capability > which specifies the exact version needed (not a range). Implementations list > all the version numbers of the JSR-spec that they are compatible with. For > more info see [1] and [2]. > > Obviously this only works when the OSGi-JPA provider implementation supports > osgi.contract by providing the JavaJPA capability for all the versions that > it is compatible with (1, 2 and 2.1). For older OSGi-JPA implementations this > may not be the case as it may be that they predate the osgi.contract > namespace... > > Best regards, > > David > > [1] http://blog.osgi.org/2014/09/portable-java-contracts-for-javax.html > <http://blog.osgi.org/2014/09/portable-java-contracts-for-javax.html> > [2] https://www.osgi.org/portable-java-contract-definitions/ > <https://www.osgi.org/portable-java-contract-definitions/> > > > On 15 September 2016 at 12:31, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net > <mailto:ch...@die-schneider.net>> wrote: > Unfortunately the spec only defines the jpa package properties up to jpa 2.0. > Do the OSGi specs already define JPA 2.1 somewhere? > > I just checked some of the JPA API bundles and they provide very different > package versions. > > org.eclipse.persistence:javax.persistence:2.1.0 has > javax.persistence;jpa="2.1";version="2.1.0" > > org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-jpa_2.1_spec:1.0-alpha-1 has > javax.persistence;jpa="2.1";version="1.2" > > Which of these is correct? > > How would a client correctly express the dependency to the jpa 2.0 or 2.1 API? > I see that there is also jpa=2.1 on the package export. Can the be used to > describe the import? > > Currently I use a version range of [2.1,2.2) in my own code. Not sure if this > is correct. > > I think it would also make sense to recommend specific maven coordinates for > each persistence spec as a kind of offical spec bundle to use. Elese people > might choose the wrong and end up with broken imports. > > Christian > > On 08.07.2016 15:41, Christian Schneider wrote: > Done > https://osgi.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189 > <https://osgi.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189> > > Christian > > On 08.07.2016 14:49, Raymond Auge wrote: > Christian could you file a bug on the public OSGi bugzilla so we don't forget > to fix this? > > I wonder if the spec bundle should refer to javax.persistence via Portable > Java Contract rather then by package version. We have a similar issue with > the org.osgi.service.http bundle which I believe should also refer to a PJC > for javax.servlet. > > https://osgi.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi <https://osgi.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi> > > - Ray > > > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de <http://www.liquid-reality.de/> > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org <mailto:osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org> > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev > <https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
