This discussion has been open for about a month now without much more
progress. While I can appreciate everyone being busy, myself included, it'd
probably be best if we could push this issue to close one way or the other.
My personal belief is that using Java 5 constructs won't slow development
down. For me, I'd suspect it'd even help contribute code, since my head has
been firmly in Java 5 codebases (i.e., I have to take a step back and think
in 1.4 terms even when just using API classes).
The biggest potential issue I see is if a bug fix needs to be backported.
When I've had to do such though, I've started with the 2.0 codebase and
ported it to 3.0, rather than the other way around. So, I don't personally
find it to be that big of a deal, but it will obviously vary per developer
style.
Once we've generally agreed that discussion has ceased, I'd like to return
to the vote. That's been open for over a month now, without a real -1, so
it's probably a formality. But, I would like there to be a general
consensus on matters.
-- KevinOn 8/15/07 11:17 AM, "Andrus Adamchik" <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2007, at 2:20 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: > >> If we do expect people to use it in production, why not release it >> as 2.5 or 3.0? Sure JPA isn't complete, but lifecycle events and >> lots of other things are. I'm using it in production for that >> reason, but we can't expect everyone to do that for what sounds >> like an alpha release. > > I see your point here, and I agree that it would be ideal if we could > do it realistically. What's holding us from doing this is that the > new feature development is not serial, but often parallel. I.e. we do > "Y" before we finish "X", resulting in a bunch of loose ends that > can't be considered production quality. In case of 3.0 some loose > ends are: > > * embeddable support (half way there) > * modeler support for lifecycle callbacks > * documentation and tutorials for the partial EJBQL ("partial" is > also a confusing part as we can't clearly tell the users what parts > of the syntax should be avoided) > * some other things I can't remember now. > > Switching to a serial development mode would place extra burden on > developers (likely resulting in early branching). I don't know - > maybe we should return to this discussion once we start TCK testing > (I haven't yet) and see where we are in terms of completeness. > >> There is no rush to release, but is the goal: full JPA compliance? > > Yes, unless we hit the wall with TCK testing. > >> How will we know when we have arrived? (especially with the JCK >> issues). > > We have access to JSR-220 TCK (I do at the moment; anybody else can > also sign an NDA and ask Geir to give it to them). > > Andrus > > >
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Sep 13 2007 - 16:36:30 EDT