Hi Craig, > This also meets my needs for a stable platform to run a new > personality without the new Java 6 dependencies. The current update in trunk runs a configuration that builds OpenJPA libraries with JDK6 compiler. But other configuration compiles and runs our test corpus with JDK5. I do not think we have a configuration that compiles OpenJPA with JDK6, compiles test cases with JDK5 and runs test cases with JDK5. May be we should create one. Such configuration will simulate the target JDK5 user environment with JDK6-compiled OpenJPA where the test case will play the equivalent role of user application. (Mike/Jeremy, are you tuned to this channel?)
> mission statement for OpenJPA > "to the implementation of object persistence, including, but not > limited to, Java Persistence API, for distribution at no charge to the > public;" I fully agree and support this view. Compliance to a spec is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sustainable interest in a project of OpenJPA's scope and breadth. Also one of the strongest feature of OpenJPA is its 'agnostic architecture' to promote the above charter. As a group we will benefit if we keep the charter in mind and consider possibilities to augment OpenJPA functionality that are beyond a standard specification. Hi Pinaki, On Mar 27, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Pinaki Poddar wrote: > > my $0.017 cents (because economy is not in good shape) > > 1. We should not pull the plug of JDK5 with a jerk, but slowly. Let > us investigate whether we can support the scenario where > a) we compile OpenJPA with Java 6 compiler > b) but the application compiles with Java 5 compiler and runs in > JRE 5 runtime. > Such a scenario will provide us forward movement without causing > inconvenience to existing users who may have valid reasons of not > upgrading to Java 6 in immediate future but like to use JPA 2.0 > features. This also meets my needs for a stable platform to run a new personality without the new Java 6 dependencies. > > > 2. The adventurous ones who venture into canonical meta-model > generation with JPA 2.0 annotation processing and shiny/fancy stuff > like that, will likely to be in Java 6 already +1 > (if not Java 7) which doesn't exist on any road map (unless you're really talking about JDK7 which is not a standard but a product that doesn't yet exist in production) > and, if not, they must make Common Annotation JSR libraries > available to the compiler. +1 > But we should not expand our effort to support such functionality on > the basis of com.sun.mirror API and/or apt command-line tool. I'm not familiar enough with these tools to comment, but it does seem wrong to depend on any com.sun packages. > > > 3. If the above appears to be a worthwhile target scenario to > support, then the dynamic class construction approach perhaps can > prove useful than hand-coding JDBC 4 dependency. > > 4. We take a decision regarding these aspects by mid-April and > announce it to be effective from, say, mid-June. I am not keen on > exact duration of the prior notice but 2 months looked to be > reasonable. > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Donald Woods <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Why do we need to support Java 5 users with OpenJPA 2.0? >> If someone wants to continue using Java 5 after it's end-of-service >> date >> this year, then they can continue using one of the 1.0.x/1.1.x/ >> 1.2.x/1.3.x >> branches.... >> >> Don't see why we need to bend over backwards for Java 5, consider >> the JPA2 >> Spec is part of the JEE6 Spec, which requires Java 6 or later. If you read the mission statement for OpenJPA, it's not to be the reference implementation for JPA but to be broader in scope: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project, to be known as Apache OpenJPA, related to the implementation of object persistence, including, but not limited to, Java Persistence API, for distribution at no charge to the public; And the case I'm interested in is not related to Java 6 features at all. If we decide that some parts of OpenJPA require a Java 6 runtime, that's ok. We decided that it wasn't worthwhile to continue to split out Java5, since many components in OpenJPA can benefit from Java 5 features (especially the old shiny template classes). But the broad benefit of Java 6 is not obvious to me. Craig > > Fair point, Donald. I was just thinking that since a JPA provider > is not > necessarily tied to the container, there may be some environments > where "JPA > as a utility" needs to be usable with Java 5. But, as you point > out, then > maybe we should just point to previous releases. I could be > convinced... > :-) > > > Kevin > > >> >> >> -Donald >> >> >> >> Kevin Sutter wrote: >> >>> Are there any concerns with building with Java 6 and running in a >>> Java 5 >>> environment? Will this just "work" out of the box? Or, do we >>> need to >>> build >>> with the -target option to be compatible with Java 5? Or, do we >>> need to >>> produce both versions? We still need to support the Java 5 runtime >>> environment, even if we build with Java 6. >>> >>> Kevin >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Jeremy Bauer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> +1 for pulling the plug on Java 5 in trunk. We are on a major >>> release >>>> boundary with 2.0, so now would be the time to do it. >>>> >>>> Moving to Java 6: (good) >>>> - Meets JPA 2.0 JSE 6 annotation processing requirement >>>> - Fewer Java versions to support (and less confusion regarding >>>> build vs. >>>> runtime Java version requirements) >>>> - The ability to naturally (no version checks, reflection, etc.) >>>> use new >>>> Java 6 features such as JDBC 4 >>>> >>>> Continue providing compile support for Java 5: (bad) >>>> - Additional requirement of making sure OpenJPA builds on both >>>> versions >>>> of >>>> Java >>>> - Inability to easily use new Java 6 features without version >>>> checks and >>>> such >>>> - Multiple code paths to maintain for version specific code >>>> >>>> I agree that if we pull the plug on Java 5, there should be some >>>> sort of >>>> announce & time period that gives folks ample time to prepare. >>>> One or >>>> two >>>> months seems reasonable. >>>> >>>> -Jeremy >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Kevin Sutter <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Per the discussion with OPENJPA-5 [1], the question of continuing >>>>> support >>>>> of >>>>> building with Java 5 has been brought up. Due to the annotation >>>>> >>>> processing >>>> >>>>> that will be required for JPA 2.0, the use of Java 6 will become a >>>>> requirement for trunk. But, do we have to continue to support >>>>> building >>>>> with >>>>> Java 5. Pinaki has recently committed changes to allow building >>>>> with >>>>> either >>>>> Java 5 or Java 6, but these changes will affect our code path as >>>>> it >>>>> >>>> relates >>>> >>>>> to connection processing. So, should we bite the bullet and >>>>> pull the >>>>> >>>> plug >>>> >>>>> on Java 5 from a build perspective? This would be for trunk >>>>> (JPA 2.0) >>>>> >>>> only >>>> >>>>> and beyond. >>>>> >>>>> Comments, suggestions, complaints are all welcome. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Kevin >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-5 >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > > > > ----- > Pinaki Poddar http://ppoddar.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/pinakipoddar > OpenJPA PMC Member/Committer > JPA Expert Group Member > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--Drop-build-support-for-Java-5--tp2539470p2546798.html > Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > 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! ----- Pinaki Poddar http://ppoddar.blogspot.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/pinakipoddar OpenJPA PMC Member/Committer JPA Expert Group Member -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--Drop-build-support-for-Java-5--tp2539470p2564871.html Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
