Regarding your initial question... we will probably switch to using this newly published spec jar. I have not decided yet, but that is the likely direction. OSGi is in fact one of the things I need to check out.
Regarding the second email, I am not sure what you are proposing Sanne. On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:14 PM Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote: > BTW I noticed that Steve had raised a problem about using these already: > - > https://javaee.groups.io/g/jpa-spec/message/25?p=Created,,posterid%3A354995,20,2,0,13596711 > > My proposal is simple: we could fairly assume that Hibernate should > propose itself as default (valid) implementation. > > When people only have Hibernate ORM on the classpath we shouldn't > mandate any explicit configuration of the JPA provider choice. > Requiring an explicit flag when there's only one implementation would > definitely be annoying for the majority of users so I strongly believe > we should consider "ourselves" to be the default. > > I can see how someone might start whining that Hibernate shouldn't > have booted without explicit authorization when "he meant" to use > another implementation, but that doesn't sound reasonable to me. > > Thanks, > Sanne > > > On 21 August 2017 at 18:17, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > It looks like that the JPA 2.2 spec produced an API jar which was > > uploaded to Maven central: > > - https://github.com/javaee/jpa-spec/issues/60#issuecomment-323771666 > > > > I hope we could use this standard artifact in future versions? > > Anything we need to watch for in terms of legal requirements, OSGi > > headers et al ? > > > > Thanks, > > Sanne > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev