responses inline... On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Kevin Sutter <kwsut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good question, Matthew. This has been brought up a couple of different > times... > > http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/JPA-2-1-td7215602.html > > http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-JPA-2-1-spec-implementation-td7581978.html > > So, there's been some interest, but not an overwhelming interest. Not to > the point of creating a team, figuring out the work effort, and divvying up > the responsibilities. Contrast that with the JPA 2.0 development effort, > and there was overwhelming community support and participation. So, I > think there are a handful of us interested in a JPA 2.1 implementation, but > more participation is required. > > Pardon my surprise, but that sounds just plain bad. That kind of sentiment threatens to scare users away, IMHO. I have always held OpenJPA in high esteem as one of the major, credible implementations because it's always been up to date WRT to the specs (and, let's not kid ourselves, it hails from Kodo JDO). Frankly, the specs don't move very fast, and at least previews of them are available well in advance of the actual GA releases. > Pinaki has went so far to create a sandbox and start experimenting with an > implementation. Again, he's a one-man show and can't do it all. Well, he > probably could, but it would require a bit of work... :-) > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/sandboxes/21 > > Well, I would have expected a team of folks on this, not just one. After all, Pinaki was arguing for expanded fetch plan capabilities in the JPA expert group based on OpenJPA's current capabilities -- and rightfully so, I might add. Maybe we should resurrect that [DISCUSSION] topic I think you should. Especially with any support customers you or the OpenJPA project sponsors may have. > but I'm curious what > features of JPA 2.1 are of most interest to you? Or, is it just a matter > of being consistent with the latest specification? > > One feature that's worth its development weight is fetch plans, which OpenJPA, thanks to its current fetch plan implementation, can implement fairly quickly. Further, OpenJPA's fetch plan support exceeds JPA's requirement with fetch depth and recursion depth! Additionally, I just happen to be writing an advanced JPA course right now, and customers of this course want to use the JPA implementation in the course that they have settled on in their organization. It just so happens that the maiden voyage of this course covers JPA 2.1 and is for a customer that is also an OpenJPA customer. And they're large. Now, I have to tell them "Sorry, OpenJPA doesn't have plans to implement JPA 2.1". Can you say, "Bye bye, customer"? EclipseLink & DataNucleus already implement 2.1, and Hibernate's implementation is in progress. If not for the technical reasons I gave above, then the need to remain competitive should be enough to have you assemble a crack 2.1 team ASAP. Don't forget about BatooJPA making noise (claiming top performance, although I take that with a few grains of salt) and the NoSQL JPA implementations (DataNucleus, ObjectDB, and Kundera), not to mention the Spring Data projects. Like it or not, you are beset on all sides with competition. Just my $0.02, which might just be worth around $0.029 with the interest I've accumulated since working with JDO- & JPA-style lightweight persistence since 1996 and with the expert groups since 2000. Thanks, > Kevin > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Matthew Adams <matt...@matthewadams.me > >wrote: > > > When will OpenJPA support JPA 2.1? > > > > -matthew > > > > -- > > mailto:matt...@matthewadams.me <matt...@matthewadams.me> > > skype:matthewadams12 > > googletalk:matt...@matthewadams.me > > http://matthewadams.me > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewadams > > > -- mailto:matt...@matthewadams.me <matt...@matthewadams.me> skype:matthewadams12 googletalk:matt...@matthewadams.me http://matthewadams.me http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewadams
