presonally I got a lot of surprises with eclipselink (like good perf out of the both...cause cache is on by default which doesnt enjoy clustering the apps, like getting connections used outside transactions where the entity should be a dead DTO etc...) which made applications uncontrolled so OpenJPA being closer to the spec is very appreciated even if it requires some setup to have the bytecode enhancement done right.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2017-09-27 11:54 GMT+02:00 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]>: > Thanks :) > > We are currently using OpenJPA, and I'm a little bit worried regarding my > next steps if I have to change it to something else. > Hibernate is not an option due to licensing limitations ... > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Matthew Broadhead < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > hi Maxim > > i wanted to use full stack TomEE (minimise external dependencies) and it > > seemed the in house JPA option gave me better support from the TomEE > team. > > also once i had overcome the differences between EclipseLink and OpenJPA > > OpenJPA seems to work more logically IMHO (less peculiarities). everyone > > will have their own preference but in my case working with JSF, CDI, CXF > > etc i now feel comfortable with OpenJPA. > > > > > > On 27/09/2017 11:23, Maxim Solodovnik wrote: > > > >> Hello Matthew, > >> > >> sorry for off-topic ... why have you migrated from EclipseLink? > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matthew Broadhead < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> i am using TomEE 7.0.3 Plus with OpenJPA in production and haven't had > any > >>> problems although i get your point that it is only JPA 2.0. Romain > >>> Manni-Bucau and Mark Struberg have been great with support when I made > >>> the > >>> transition from EclipseLink to OpenJPA. I also thought I heard the > other > >>> day that Mark has been working towards a 3.x release > >>> > >>> > >>> On 27/09/2017 07:01, Andy Gumbrecht wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Danilo, > >>>> > >>>> I'd personally only consider Hibernate or EclipseLink as production > >>>> contenders with TomEE. We can certify with either, but can only > >>>> distribute > >>>> EclipseLink. > >>>> > >>>> OpenJPA has lost it's momentum for sure, but that doesn't mean TomEE > >>>> will > >>>> stand still at all. It's only about packaging, so quite trivial > really. > >>>> > >>>> That said, I'm sure that being OSS means that anyone willing can dive > >>>> into OpenJPA and make things happen. Even you might like to help? > >>>> > >>>> Andy. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 25/09/17 15:20, Danilo Cominotti Marques wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hello, David! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for all the details. However, there is another point that > >>>>> currently > >>>>> worries me: is there any progress on the OpenJPA side of things? By > >>>>> looking > >>>>> at the commits log on GitHub (which should mirror the Apache > >>>>> repository), > >>>>> it doesn't seem like a 3.x release that targets JPA 2.1 will happen > >>>>> anytime > >>>>> soon. Furthermore, the issues targeted at version 3.0.0 in OpenJPA's > >>>>> JIRA > >>>>> seem not to have received any attention for over a year. Therefore, > >>>>> unless > >>>>> I am mistaken about OpenJPA's current condition, I don't see TomEE > >>>>> [non-Plume] implementing all of Java EE 7 soon either, never mind > Java > >>>>> EE 8 > >>>>> with JPA 2.2. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:02 PM, David Blevins < > >>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Francois! > >>>>> > >>>>>> As Mark mentions the Java EE 8 work is going on now. It will be > >>>>>> compatible, but not certified -- at least not directly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The story there is the Java EE TCK licensing agreement between > Oracle > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> Apache expired and is not being renewed due to disagreement on the > >>>>>> terms. > >>>>>> So Apache does not have a Java EE 8 TCK. With my Apache hat on, I > >>>>>> worked > >>>>>> with Cameron Purdy, then SVP of Development at Oracle, for over 2 > >>>>>> years > >>>>>> trying to get a new agreement made. When he departed Oracle, the > >>>>>> progress > >>>>>> stopped on the Oracle side. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I then switched hats and began pursing things from the Tomitribe. > >>>>>> After a > >>>>>> year we have licensed and paid for a TCK. We can't legally give it > to > >>>>>> Apache (Oracle's rules) nor can we legally release Apache TomEE > >>>>>> (Apache's > >>>>>> rules), but we can legally certify something that is 100% Apache > >>>>>> TomEE, > >>>>>> but > >>>>>> with a different name. I.e. we can take TomEE zip, rename it, run > it > >>>>>> through the TCK and put it up. We intend to do that so that Apache > >>>>>> TomEE > >>>>>> releases are in spirit, certified. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are some challenges ahead, such as only Tomitribe people can > run > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> TCK or see the results. Java EE itself is being open sourced, TCKs > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> all, so this will have a better solution long-term. Short-term we'll > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> to power through together as a community and support each other the > >>>>>> best we > >>>>>> can. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> David Blevins > >>>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins > >>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sep 25, 2017, at 8:15 AM, COURTAULT Francois < > >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hello everyone, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As Java EE 8 is out, could you tell us when a TomEE version will be > >>>>>>> at > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> least compatible or certified released ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any pointer to TomEE roadmap ? (Maybe an announcement at Oracle Java > >>>>>>> One > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ?) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Have to wait for TomEE 9 because of Servlet 4.0 ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best Regards. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>>> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the > >>>>>>> addressees > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or > >>>>>> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be > liable > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not > the > >>>>>> intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the > >>>>>> sender. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this > >>>>>>> transmission > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused > >>>>>> by a > >>>>>> transmitted virus. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax >
