Re: [DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release

2006-10-15 Thread Craig L Russell
Hi Andy, My comments only apply to requiring standard support for Calendar. Of course, individual implementations are free to support Calendar as a field type and impose whatever restrictions they want on its use. If enough implementations do this, I'm open to formalizing the support in f

Re: [DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release

2006-10-15 Thread Andy Jefferson
Hi Craig, > I believe that you cannot map a Calendar to a single column in the > datastore because Calendar has a few features that you don't want to > lose: Thanks. I only had the storage of time and timezone in mind ... ie. part 1, forgetting the strangeness of Calendar. Withdraw the request

Re: [DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release

2006-10-14 Thread Andy Jefferson
> I agree. After reading only the header of every option I though that 3 is > the best and 1 is the worst, but after reading the cons of 2 and 3 it seems > that 1 is the only feasible option. I am afraid that plans for 6-8 months > might eventually take much longer and because the project is under

Re: [DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release

2006-10-14 Thread Ilan Kirsh
Expert Group Cc: Apache JDO project Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release -- Users want 1.5 features ASAP -- Vendors need to support existing customers who cannot upgrade to 1.5 I suggest: -- Target the maintenance release against

Re: [DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release

2006-10-14 Thread Craig L Russell
Hi Andy, I'd like to know what you think JDO support for Calendar should be. I believe that you cannot map a Calendar to a single column in the datastore because Calendar has a few features that you don't want to lose: 1. A Calendar instance represents a point in time for a particular ti

Re: [DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release

2006-10-14 Thread Andy Jefferson
Hi Craig, To ChangeLog I would like to see the addition of support for Calendar. > One rather large decision is whether to require JDK 1.5 for the > release. I think there are three options, since part of the change > requires JDK 1.5: annotations, Enum, and signature changes for generics. > > 1

[DISCUSS] JDO 2.1 maintenance release

2006-10-13 Thread Craig L Russell
Javadogs,Please refer to http://wiki.apache.org/jdo/ChangeLog and http://wiki.apache.org/jdo/ChangeLog15It's time to decide the broad outline of the JDO 2 maintenance release. I have put into the ChangeLogs all the features that I know of that we have discussed including. If there are any missing i