Part of the Eclipse (EMF) project build is the plugin (jar) "commonj-sdo", which contains nothing more then the implementation-independent SDO v1.0 interfaces distributed with the SDO spec. The fact that it's part of EMF version 2.1.0 or any other version, is just an Eclipse build statement ... the interfaces are the same in any EMF version - it only ever implemented SDO 1.0.
In the Tuscany spec/sdo project we have essentially the same thing - a jar that contains the (implementation neutral) SDO interfaces from the SDO spec - but this time SDO v2.0. SDO 2, however, introduces "hellper interfaces" which include an INSTANCE field for locating the implementation. The way that the "supplied" SDO interfaces locate the helper instances (implementations) was trivial and in fact (as Jeremy pointed out) made it impossible to support multiple implementations of the interfaces, so we (Jeremy) replaced the class that manges this with our own. So now our impl-neutral jar is even more neutral. Hope this helps clarify things. Frank. Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/14/2006 12:49:05 PM: > O.K. I assumed 2.1.0 referred to the SDO version (2.1.0 eclipse impl > ~ SDO 1.0). It seems like the issue of an impl-neutral jar should be > raised with the spec group since this is bound to crop up elsewhere. > > Jim > > > On Feb 14, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > > > Jim Marino wrote: > > > >> In our POMs, we have the following dependency: > >> > >> <dependency> > >> <groupId>org.eclipse.emf</groupId> > >> <artifactId>commonj-sdo</artifactId> > >> <version>2.1.0</version> > >> </dependency> > >> > >> So does 2.1.0 refer to the eclipse version, not the "spec" jar? > >> > > Yes. This is the SDO1 API. > > > > > >> Is there an "independent" (i.e. impl neutral) SDO jar? > >> > > > > Due to issues with the SDO spec, no. However, I made some changes > > to our > > version of the SDO2 spec jar (the one in spec/sdo) to allow multiple > > implementations to share it. It's a "vendor" extension that allows > > other > > vendors to use our implementation :-) > > > > I am in the process of converting the SCA code over to using our SDO2 > > implementation rather then the SDO1 one from Eclipse. Until this is > > done > > we need to continue using the SDO1 APIs to match the SDO1 > > implementation. > > > > If someone would like to chip in, any assistance would be appreciated. > > > > -- > > Jeremy > > >
