On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
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).
Well, that's not how the geronimo spec naming scheme works :-/
We have the problem of two more or less independent version
schemes.... the spec version and the geronimo release version. We
decided to put the spec version in the maven artifact id.
geronimo-<spec-name>_<spec-version_spec
and the geronimo release version in the maven version.
So
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec</artifactId>
<version>2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT</version>
would be a 2.0 release of the ejb 3.0/jpa 1.0 spec.
Without agreeing to a basic change in the naming convention I don't
think there's much alternative to having
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec</artifactId>
<version>1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT</version>
for the jpa 2 specs we're proposing now, the question is what to do
about the existing and future jars.
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)?
stuff under geronimo-spec is from the antedeluvian maven 1/geronimo
1.x spec releases and is many years old. It gets into the maven2
repository by some kind of magic.
stuff under o.a.g.specs are the specs built with maven2, including all
the javaee 5 specs. Most or all of them now also contain osgi
metadata along with occasional bug fixes.
thanks
david jencks
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!
