+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.
+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
+1
On Feb 9, 2007, at 12:41 AM, 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
+1
Either move to the Geronimo version or get the dev.java version updated.
Either way, just so that we're using a spec-compliant version of the API.
Thanks!
Kevin
On 2/8/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It turns out that the JPA API we've been building against (the one
from
+1
The Geronimo API is verified using the official Jee5 signatures file.
-dain
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/
