David, I am fine with it. If we run into this when upgrading jars next time, then lets come back to re-generating into the build again. I'll concede it was pre-spec ;-)
Jeff David Blevins wrote: > On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: > >> What I meant is that I believe that the apis, as accessible from our >> OEJB code won't change, but the internally generated code can/will. >> This means that our code will likely still be fine and will probably >> never need to change since the API's will not change. However, what >> will change is any private/protected (internal) code. This means if we >> switch to a new jar, the code may very well need to be regenerated. > > Tell you what. Take a half-hour and check out some of the changes we've > made to our tree so that it's easier to code against. If you still feel > the same, have the time and think it's worth it, I'm cool with it. > > Here are some of the customizations we've done: > > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2728 //initial commit > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2729 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2730 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2731 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2734 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2737 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2739 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2740 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2741 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2742 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2770 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2773 > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb?cs=2799 > >> This was what I ran into, but then again, I was using pre-spec jars >> (2EA3). > > I ran into that too back in May when I discovered that the tree > generated from the maven plugin (i.e. the uncertified RI JAXB 2EA3) > wouldn't run with the published JAXB RI 2.0.1 certified jars; not > surprising as lots of things were changed in the spec before it went final. > > -David > > >> David Blevins wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 2, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> David Blevins wrote: >>>>> Right, you and I are talking about the same thing. Any thoughts on >>>>> how >>>>> to avoid future headaces when code using the generated code doesn't >>>>> compile as we go to another 2.0.x version. >>>> >>>> I think the code using the generated code will be ok. Its the generated >>>> code used internally with newer jars is where I think the problems will >>>> exist, since it seems to be the internal JAXB annotations that are >>>> being >>>> affected. But then again, who knows if the outter core APIs will >>>> change :-( >>> >>> I don't know I followed what you mean with inner and outer annotations. >>> >>> Right now our tree isn't a "generated" tree and only uses the >>> annotations from the JAXB 2.0 spec. Not sure how that fits in with what >>> you're describing. >>> >>> -David >>
