Hi Trygve,

On Aug 5, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:54:15PM -0700, Craig Russell wrote:

   Hi Trygve,
   On Aug 5, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:

     On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:37:25AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote:


   This is true because of intrinsic differences between the two jars. An
   application built against JDO 1 will need the JDO 1 jar files, and won't
   work with JDO 2. We have implemented source compatibility but binary
   compatibility turned out to be not practical. So once you choose JDO 2,
   you need to depend on the JDO 2 jar and the JDO 1 jar is worthless.


Ok, sorry, I was assuming that they where going to be binary compatible.

I'm just wondering why was it hard to be binary compatible? As far as I
can tall all changes are binary compatible, but of course I don't have the
full overview.

Actually, most of the changes in JDO 2 are binary compatible, but we made a decision on one that would not work. 

The JDOHelper method getPersistenceManagerFactory(Properties props) was changed to getPersistenceManagerFactory(Map props). It seemed pointless to keep the old method call, deprecate it, and cause all applications calling the method with a Properties instance to get a compiler warning.



     because if A depends on "jdo1" and B depend on
     "jdo2" I will end up with both of them in my class path. If they both
     had
     the artifact id "jdo" Maven's versioning mediation will take care of
     selecting one or the other based on the current strategy (the strategy
     by
     default is to pick the version specified 'neareast' the currently
     building
     project).

   I'm not sure whether this is an issue based on the discussion above. Any
   project will be using either JDO 1 or JDO 2 and there's no decision for
   maven to make. And all projects that share a class path have to choose the
   same one.


Yes it was. Thanks for your clarifications and for getting the JDO
snapshots to the repository will for sure make my life better.

Thanks for your comments. We really are trying hard to make life easier for others.

Craig

--
Trygve


Craig Russell

Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo

408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to