On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > > Hi Jeremy, >> >> On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: >> >> OpenJPA & Geronimo devs, >>> Efforts are underway to begin JPA 2.0 enhancements in OpenJPA. OpenJPA >>> builds with and bundles the Geronimo JPA 1.0 spec jar. As we move >>> forward >>> to JPA 2.0, OpenJPA will need to use/provide updated spec APIs. Like EJB >>> 3.1, JPA 2.0 is still in the review stages so there may be frequent >>> updates >>> to the spec API until the final draft is published. This leads to >>> questions of "who, how, and where" for updating the JPA spec APIs to JPA >>> 2.0. >>> >>> IMHO, it would be best if the spec jar resides in Geronimo. >>> >> >> +1 >> >> Even if the expert group shortly publishes a spec jar, it will not have >> the proper license. >> >> Ideally, the >>> Geronimo project will have a branch for JPA 2.0 spec development, with >>> the >>> OpenJPA project providing the JPA 2.0 enhancements. The concern with >>> that >>> approach is that the OpenJPA committers cannot commit to the Geronimo >>> repository. >>> >> >> Not yet, but surely this can be fixed. >> >> OpenJPA would need committers on the Geronimo project to do >>> code commits and builds of the spec jar. This may become a burden on the >>> Geronimo project and may be a potential (albeit small) bottleneck for >>> OpenJPA development. Another alternative is for the OpenJPA project to >>> temporarily update and maintain the 2.0 spec API (using the current >>> Geronimo >>> spec API as a starting point) while JPA 2.0 is in flux. Major revisions >>> and/or the final could then be provided to Geronimo to be published in >>> the >>> Geronimo repository, with the end goal of OpenJPA (and others) using the >>> spec jar provided by Geronimo. >>> >> >> Assuming that the Geronimo PMC trusts the OpenJPA committers, one or three >> OpenJPA developers should be given commit access to the portion of the >> repository that contains the spec jar. With suitable tests to make sure that >> we don't break the Geronimo build, this should be straightforward. >> > > Do you really expect more than 2 or three revisions before stability? > I'd suggest that we try working with patches until it turns into an actual > problem. This might be mildly inconvenient for whoever writes the 2.0 > classes but it might end up being quicker than trying to deal with changing > svn permissions. I have no particular objection to doing this but.... I'm > happy to apply patches quickly but have no clue what to do about svn > permissions and worry it might involve policy changes, pmc discussions, etc > etc. I agree. There may be a fair number of changes at the beginning but it *should* calm down when the spec finalizes (famous last words). When / if it becomes a problem (ie David is tired of us bothering him :-) ) we can always fork a copy to the OpenJPA project with the intent of merging back when it's in less of a state of flux (or on a regular basis). > I've started off with > > svn cp > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec > > and some changes to the pom so the results look like v.2. I set the maven > version to 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT since most of the draft specs I've seen require > that jars clearly indicate "early access" status (I didn't check the jpa > spec specificially). > > > This points out the possible problem that the jpa 1.0 spec appeared to be > part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I gave it a spec version number of 3.0. Any > suggestions about what to do about this would be appreciated. > I think the ideal fix is to copy geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec to geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec and announce that we're going to remove geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec at some point in the future. There's some precedent for moving a maven artifact - moving ant:ant to org.apache.ant:ant comes to mind, so it might be permissable. I don't know if there's a good way to properly announce it to users (potentially a superset of say geronimo-users) , I suspect we can learn from what the ant team did and communicate the change in the same way. Best Regards, -mike > > thanks > david jencks > > > >> >> Craig >> >>> >>> Thoughts/ideas/opinions? >>> >>> -Jeremy (OpenJPA committer) >>> >> >> Craig L Russell >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo >> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> >
