really, from owb-1.1.3 to 1.1.4 there is not much difference beside the fix I did for Romain.
I agree that this is important for your scenario, but most people will not have this issue. Romain, is it possible that you just upgrade the owb-impl.jar locally and we go on with 1.1.3 so far? I'm really +1 for releasing now and then in 1 month from now. The previously released tomee version really had some big glitches, and we need to ship something to be able to make any users able to give tomee a serious run... I'm sure we will get back a lot feedback and there will be other things which must get improved as well in this month! In ~1M we will get bval to TLP and release bval-1.0, release owb-1.1.4 and release OpenJPA-2.2.0 (already triggered the discuss about it). LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > To: dev@openejb.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:01 PM > Subject: Re: Release time? > > > On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> No, this ones is not available with previous owb. Was the same with >> interceptor bindings. >> >> However i still think 1.1.4 should be used since it fixes issues relative >> to cdi 1.0 itself. > > Right, I think it comes down to: should we release now and then again in two > or > three weeks, or should we just release in two or three weeks. > > So either way I see a release in our future in 2 or 3 weeks. I see that > release > as a constant. Will happen regardless. > > The real question is are the issues in beta-1 and 1.1.1 bad enough that we > should try and release something now as well? > > > > -David > >> Le 4 janv. 2012 18:19, "David Blevins" > <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> >>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>> >>>> -> the 0.3 release of bval means changing the bval tck setup >>>> -> the bug of owb 1.1.3 is not tested in TCKs (as a lot of > others): >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1224895 >>> >>> Cool. Can you file a JIRA for that one. >>> >>> This is basically the "can't add interceptors via an > extension" bug right? >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >>>> >>>> 2012/1/4 David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> if you have the openjpa-maven-plugin-2.2.0-SNAPSHOT, then > you most >>>>> definitely also have openjpa itself in 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm using an internally released version of it in 2 > projects, and >>>>> OpenJPA-2.2.0-SNAPSHOT is really stable. >>>>>> >>>>>> So we could also push for shipping an OpenJPA release. I > can take over >>>>> driving this part (I'm OpenJPA committer). >>>>>> I found quite a few (personal) show stoppers in > openjpa-2.1.x which we >>>>> fixed in 2.2.x >>>>> >>>>> Any gut feeling on how long releases take in OpenJPA-land? >>>>> >>>>>> If you still like to use openjpa-2.1.x, then just use the >>>>> org.codehaus.mojo version of the plugin instead [1]. They are > basically >>> the >>>>> same source, I just moved the plugin over to openjpa to make it > easier >>> to >>>>> maintain and test with OpenJPA itself. >>>>> >>>>> Probably the TCK will be the biggest indicator if we can > switch, then >>>>> 2.2.x release time. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure where our SNAPSHOT discussions will end up, but I can > see us >>>>> potentially releasing now with prior versions of the SNAPSHOTs > then >>>>> beginning another release in 2-3 weeks as the newer versions > come >>> along. >>>>> >>>>> Seems like there's some merit in releasing now and giving > people just a >>>>> bit more time to get their releases out the door. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> To: dev@openejb.apache.org >>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 7:56 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Release time? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:52 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can we use timestamped snapshot as a workaround > (for snapshot deps, >>> I >>>>>>> mean)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We could maybe release the code ourselves like > Geronimo does from >>> time >>>>> to >>>>>>> time. Just copy it in, update the groupIds and release > it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at our snapshots we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - javaee-api 6.0-3-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - cxf 2.5.1-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - owb 1.1.4-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - bval 0.4-incubating-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - karaf-maven-plugin 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - openejb-openwebbeans-jsf 1.1.2-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - org.apache.karaf.tooling.exam.container > 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - openjpa-maven-plugin 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - openejb-jstl 1.3-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of these will be easy to deal with, but these seem > a bit >>> trickier: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - karaf-maven-plugin 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - org.apache.karaf.tooling.exam.container > 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> - openjpa-maven-plugin 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From a compliance perpective it looks like we're > good with the >>> following >>>>>>> previous versions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - cxf 2.5.0 >>>>>>> - owb 1.1.3 >>>>>>> - bval 0.3-incubating (our patched version) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We could easily release again in two weeks or so when > these things are >>>>> all >>>>>>> released. We keep saying we want to release more > frequently but we >>>>> haven't >>>>>>> yet done it. Releasing again when these binaries are > out might be a >>>>> good way to >>>>>>> get into that habit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Holding our release isn't that appealing and > neither is using >>>>>>> non-reproducable timestamped versions. Neither are > really good >>> habits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >
