[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-8?page=comments#action_12427870 ]
Neil Hornbeck commented on OPENJPA-8:
-
Updated to revision 431325. I am now able to us the Enhancer from the command
line.
Vote closed with one +1 (me) and zero -1s. Welcome!
Now, I'll kick off the process to get rights assigned.
-Patrick
--
Patrick Linskey
BEA Systems, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Linskey
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 12:49 PM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
So... before I got update the jira, I want to go make sure it's not
something stupid I'm doing.
Classpath defined like this in ant...
path id=project.classpath
pathelement location=${basedir}/lib/commons-collections-3.2.jar/
pathelement
Here is the technique I use on OpenEJB. Note the version here is
hardcoded cause at the time ${pom.currentVersion} didn't work. They
may have fixed that since. Anyway, at runtime we just read this file
out of the classpath. Geronimo adopted the same technique.
plugin
ConfigurationProviders don't know anything about PersistenceProviders,
of course, and need to be constructible via a no-args constructor. But
maybe the PersistenceProviderImpl could populate the
ConfigurationProvdierImpl with information about which subclass of
PersistenceProviderImpl it should
I spoke to Geir about this a bunch last week; he suggested we use a
number-dev nomenclature, so that it'd be clear that the current
build is
a dev build rather than a well-known numbered release. So,
this would
mean we'd have 0.9.0-dev, meaning that there are
differences since the
Hi Marc,
On Aug 14, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
Patrick-
What's the difference between SNAPSHOT and -dev, in mavenese? I
wasn't
suggesting that what we talked about was better; just tossing some
more
fuel on the fire.
I don't know how well documented it is, but my
It might be good to run through the common dev scenarios in
detail to
see which model would work best for this project, since there are so
many sub-projects.
Good point. I think that we should move to a model where we have a project
that assembles a single unified jar (including merging
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 20:57 -0700, Patrick Linskey wrote:
It might be good to run through the common dev scenarios in
detail to
see which model would work best for this project, since there are so
many sub-projects.
Good point. I think that we should move to a model where we have a
Note that that will not merge anything you need in the META-INF
directory. It does do it for plexus components.xml files though, so
maybe it's a good time to make that pluggable.
- Brett
On 15/08/06, Trygve Laugstøl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 20:57 -0700, Patrick Linskey
10 matches
Mail list logo
