Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
FYI, I ran into a problem today trying to use geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.1.1.jar in an OSGi context together with Spring ORM: The spec JAR exports the javax.xml.persistence package as version 3.0 but Spring expects [1.0.0, 2.0.0). I guess I'll have to patch the spec JAR or use another one from somewhere. IMO, exporting version 3.0 is incorrect. djencks wrote: Before doing this I'd like to have a plan for what to do in a couple years when jpa 3.0 is proposed. how will we avoid a collision? the existing geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-version.jar jars will still be out there. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Updating-the-JPA-spec-jar-for-JPA-2.0-tp20427224s134p20857980.html Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable? We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact published to the maven repo asap. -Jeremy On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to handle commits. The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0 spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact. -Jeremy On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT! At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases. See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know about ;) LieGrue, strub [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/ --- Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: Von: Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dev@geronimo.apache.org Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50 On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: --- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. Do we really need to change anything? Imho the current artifactId geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec with a version 1.0 is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;) The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA. So I'd suggest to simply use version2.0-SNAPSHOT/version and we're done. Yes, this would be the thing to do. The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely correct. So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact id or group id (again). That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo specs though. I have no strong feelings either way though. We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec finalizes 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. -mike Craig Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway. So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)? txs and LieGrue, strub Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Hi Jeremy, I don't think there's any argument about the artifactId of geronimo- jpa_2.0_spec and version of 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT for the new work, so as soon as you supply a patch I can apply it and push a snapshot. I have no objection to the other ideas but they won't make any immediate difference to anything. I thought we could wait a bit for other comments. If you open a geronimo jira and assign it to me for patches I'll be reminded on each new patch :-) thanks david jencks On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/ doable? We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact published to the maven repo asap. -Jeremy On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to handle commits. The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0 spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0- SNAPSHOT version to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact. -Jeremy On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT! At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases. See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know about ;) LieGrue, strub [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/ --- Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: Von: Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dev@geronimo.apache.org Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50 On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: --- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. Do we really need to change anything? Imho the current artifactId geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec with a version 1.0 is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;) The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA. So I'd suggest to simply use version2.0-SNAPSHOT/version and we're done. Yes, this would be the thing to do. The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely correct. So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact id or group id (again). That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo specs though. I have no strong feelings either way though. We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec finalizes 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. -mike Craig Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway. So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)? txs and LieGrue, strub Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Sounds great. I'll open a JIRA. Thanks! -Jeremy On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Hi Jeremy, I don't think there's any argument about the artifactId of geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec and version of 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT for the new work, so as soon as you supply a patch I can apply it and push a snapshot. I have no objection to the other ideas but they won't make any immediate difference to anything. I thought we could wait a bit for other comments. If you open a geronimo jira and assign it to me for patches I'll be reminded on each new patch :-) thanks david jencks On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable? We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact published to the maven repo asap. -Jeremy On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to handle commits. The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0 spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact. -Jeremy On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT! At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases. See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know about ;) LieGrue, strub [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/ --- Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: Von: Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dev@geronimo.apache.org Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50 On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: --- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. Do we really need to change anything? Imho the current artifactId geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec with a version 1.0 is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;) The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA. So I'd suggest to simply use version2.0-SNAPSHOT/version and we're done. Yes, this would be the thing to do. The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely correct. So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact id or group id (again). That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo specs though. I have no strong feelings either way though. We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec finalizes 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. -mike Craig Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway. So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)? txs and LieGrue, strub Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:42 PM, Michael Dick wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: Hi Jeremy, On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: OpenJPA Geronimo devs, Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA. OpenJPA builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move forward to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs. Like EJB 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent updates to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to questions of who, how, and where for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA 2.0. IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo. +1 Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not have the proper license. Ideally, the Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with the OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern with that approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo repository. Not yet, but surely this can be fixed. OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden on the Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current Geronimo spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major revisions and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in the Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the spec jar provided by Geronimo. Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward. Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability? I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an actual problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the 2.0 classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with changing svn permissions. I have no particular objection to doing this but I'm happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc etc. I agree. There may be a fair number of changes at the beginning but it *should* calm down when the spec finalizes (famous last words). When / if it becomes a problem (ie David is tired of us bothering him :-) ) we can always fork a copy to the OpenJPA project with the intent of merging back when it's in less of a state of flux (or on a regular basis). I've started off with svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the maven version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen require that jars clearly indicate early access status (I didn't check the jpa spec specificially). This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. I think the ideal fix is to copy geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec to geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec and announce that we're going to remove geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec at some point in the future. There's some precedent for moving a maven artifact - moving ant:ant to org.apache.ant:ant comes to mind, so it might be permissable. I don't know if there's a good way to properly announce it to users (potentially a superset of say geronimo-users) , I suspect we can learn from what the ant team did and communicate the change in the same way. There's some kind of relocation pom I don't know that it's ever been used for anything other than changing maven 1 names to maven 2 names, like in the ant example you show. Before doing this I'd like to have a plan for what to do in a couple years when jpa 3.0 is proposed. how will we avoid a collision? the existing geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-version.jar jars will still be out there. thanks david jencks Best Regards, -mike thanks david jencks Craig Thoughts/ideas/opinions? -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer) Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Craig L Russell wrote: On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: --- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. Do we really need to change anything? Imho the current artifactId geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec with a version 1.0 is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;) The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA. So I'd suggest to simply use version2.0-SNAPSHOT/version and we're done. Yes, this would be the thing to do. The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely correct. So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo- jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact id or group id (again). Well, that's not how the geronimo spec naming scheme works :-/ We have the problem of two more or less independent version schemes the spec version and the geronimo release version. We decided to put the spec version in the maven artifact id. geronimo-spec-name_spec-version_spec and the geronimo release version in the maven version. So groupIdorg.apache.geronimo.specs/groupId artifactIdgeronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/artifactId version2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT/version would be a 2.0 release of the ejb 3.0/jpa 1.0 spec. Without agreeing to a basic change in the naming convention I don't think there's much alternative to having groupIdorg.apache.geronimo.specs/groupId artifactIdgeronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/artifactId version1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT/version for the jpa 2 specs we're proposing now, the question is what to do about the existing and future jars. Craig Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway. So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)? stuff under geronimo-spec is from the antedeluvian maven 1/geronimo 1.x spec releases and is many years old. It gets into the maven2 repository by some kind of magic. stuff under o.a.g.specs are the specs built with maven2, including all the javaee 5 specs. Most or all of them now also contain osgi metadata along with occasional bug fixes. thanks david jencks txs and LieGrue, strub Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: --- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. Do we really need to change anything? Imho the current artifactId geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec with a version 1.0 is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;) The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA. So I'd suggest to simply use version2.0-SNAPSHOT/version and we're done. Yes, this would be the thing to do. The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely correct. So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact id or group id (again). That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo specs though. I have no strong feelings either way though. We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec finalizes 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. -mike Craig Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway. So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)? txs and LieGrue, strub Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT! At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases. See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know about ;) LieGrue, strub [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/ --- Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: Von: Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dev@geronimo.apache.org Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50 On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: --- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. Do we really need to change anything? Imho the current artifactId geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec with a version 1.0 is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;) The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA. So I'd suggest to simply use version2.0-SNAPSHOT/version and we're done. Yes, this would be the thing to do. The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely correct. So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact id or group id (again). That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo specs though. I have no strong feelings either way though. We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec finalizes 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. -mike Craig Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway. So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)? txs and LieGrue, strub Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to handle commits. The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0 spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact. -Jeremy On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT! At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases. See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know about ;) LieGrue, strub [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/ --- Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: Von: Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dev@geronimo.apache.org Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50 On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: --- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. Do we really need to change anything? Imho the current artifactId geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec with a version 1.0 is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;) The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA. So I'd suggest to simply use version2.0-SNAPSHOT/version and we're done. Yes, this would be the thing to do. The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely correct. So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact id or group id (again). That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo specs though. I have no strong feelings either way though. We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec finalizes 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. -mike Craig Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway. So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)? txs and LieGrue, strub Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
Hi Jeremy, On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: OpenJPA Geronimo devs, Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA. OpenJPA builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move forward to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs. Like EJB 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent updates to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to questions of who, how, and where for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA 2.0. IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo. +1 Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not have the proper license. Ideally, the Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with the OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern with that approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo repository. Not yet, but surely this can be fixed. OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden on the Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current Geronimo spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major revisions and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in the Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the spec jar provided by Geronimo. Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward. Craig Thoughts/ideas/opinions? -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer) Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: Hi Jeremy, On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: OpenJPA Geronimo devs, Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA. OpenJPA builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move forward to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs. Like EJB 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent updates to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to questions of who, how, and where for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA 2.0. IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo. +1 Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not have the proper license. Ideally, the Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with the OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern with that approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo repository. Not yet, but surely this can be fixed. OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden on the Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current Geronimo spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major revisions and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in the Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the spec jar provided by Geronimo. Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward. Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability?I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an actual problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the 2.0 classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with changing svn permissions. I have no particular objection to doing this but I'm happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc etc. I've started off with svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the maven version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen require that jars clearly indicate early access status (I didn't check the jpa spec specificially). This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. thanks david jencks Craig Thoughts/ideas/opinions? -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer) Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: Hi Jeremy, On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: OpenJPA Geronimo devs, Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA. OpenJPA builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move forward to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs. Like EJB 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent updates to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to questions of who, how, and where for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA 2.0. IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo. +1 Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not have the proper license. Ideally, the Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with the OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern with that approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo repository. Not yet, but surely this can be fixed. OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden on the Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current Geronimo spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major revisions and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in the Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the spec jar provided by Geronimo. Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or three OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of the repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make sure that we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward. Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability? I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an actual problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the 2.0 classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with changing svn permissions. I have no particular objection to doing this but I'm happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc etc. I agree. There may be a fair number of changes at the beginning but it *should* calm down when the spec finalizes (famous last words). When / if it becomes a problem (ie David is tired of us bothering him :-) ) we can always fork a copy to the OpenJPA project with the intent of merging back when it's in less of a state of flux (or on a regular basis). I've started off with svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the maven version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen require that jars clearly indicate early access status (I didn't check the jpa spec specificially). This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. I think the ideal fix is to copy geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec to geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec and announce that we're going to remove geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec at some point in the future. There's some precedent for moving a maven artifact - moving ant:ant to org.apache.ant:ant comes to mind, so it might be permissable. I don't know if there's a good way to properly announce it to users (potentially a superset of say geronimo-users) , I suspect we can learn from what the ant team did and communicate the change in the same way. Best Regards, -mike thanks david jencks Craig Thoughts/ideas/opinions? -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer) Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
