Hi David Thanks for the useful info about IBM decision on switching form OpenJPA to Eclipselink from JPA 2.1. I think that's exactly the point.
I myself also prefer OpenJPA, but I can understand why IBM wants to stick with eclipselink from now on. [] Leo On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:13 AM, David Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 2, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hibernate is just not apache compliant, im not for eclipselink since it > > usage and behavior is error prone and harder to control + id like to stay > > apache. > > > > Well stay openjpa i think. > > > > Btw this kind of discussion is generally useless. You would have had the > > same about bval...one week of work and we got it. > > Definitely a useful discussion as people are going on what's been > documented, which is nothing in this area. > > For other readers, Romain is correct, we can't ship Hibernate due to > licensing restrictions documented here: > > - http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x > see "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?" > > We already support/ship EclipseLink, so the question is really about what > will happen with OpenJPA. > > I certainly hope OpenJPA can be brought up to JPA 2.1 compliance. > Challenge for the readers is IBM was the main contributor and has simply > tired of carrying the load alone: > > - > https://developer.ibm.com/wasdev/2014/05/28/eclipselink-jpa-provider-liberty-profile > > "we agreed it was better to join forces with the EclipseLink open > source > community than to be the primary (sole) developer in the OpenJPA > community." > > This doesn't mean OpenJPA has to die, it just means if you believe in open > source, now is the time to act on those beliefs. > > Three people in their spare time can do amazing things. > > > -David > >
