On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
--- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: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.Do we really need to change anything? Imho the current <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec with a <version> 1.0 is somehow not really maven stylish, but it doesn't hinder us ;)The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we do not have any problem other than the confusing term '3.0' in the groupId since this references EJB and not JPA.So I'd suggest to simply use <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version> and we're done.
Yes, this would be the thing to do.The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which had gotten to the 3.0 level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0.
The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public Review Draft stage) is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems completely correct.
So even though it's confusing because of the original geronimo- jpa_3.0_spec nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more if we change the artifact id or group id (again).
Craig
Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is the fact, that there are 2 specs online:http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, and this doesn't contain the jpa spec anyway.So could someone shed a light on this for me (I'm not a geronimized one)?txs and LieGrue, strub
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!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
