Re: Wrapping up Cayenne 3.0

From: Malcolm Edgar (malcolm.edga..mail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2008 - 18:59:18 EDT

  • Next message: Aristedes Maniatis: "Re: Wrapping up Cayenne 3.0"

    + 1

    This sounds like a good plan to me. Now I am a bit biased here in
    that our company is a committed user of Cayenne 3.0 classic mode.

    regards Malcolm Edgar

    On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    >
    > On Jun 18, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
    >
    >> Since there is no copyright over the concept of JPA itself, could this be
    >> satisfied by simply ensuring that nothing mentions that Cayenne is JPA
    >> compliant or partially-compliant?
    >
    > It's worse than that. If you read the license in the JPA PDF, we are not
    > allowed to ship anything that implements javax.persistence interfaces unless
    > we are certified.
    >
    >
    >>> * (plus lots of smaller features and bug fixes) :
    >>
    >> * How about the generified SelectQuery? I know it was discussed to death
    >> and there was no 100% clean method, but it might be nice to get in given 3.0
    >> is the Java 5 release.
    >
    > I started playing with it and got stuck a bit... Didn't like the stuff that
    > came out. I am +1 on having it in 3.0 if we get the design that we like.
    >
    >> Maybe now is a good time to create 4.0 and 3.1 milestones and start
    >> triaging tasks into those?
    >
    > You mean like a Wiki page (not an SVN branch)? Yeah sure we can do that.
    >
    >
    >>> * We EOL 1.2 (SourceForge) and 2.0 (Apache) branches.
    >>
    >> Might be good to support the 2.0 branch for critical bug fixes for 12
    >> months? Doesn't look like there will be any given its current stable nature,
    >> but it might create confidence.
    >
    > Fine with me. As long as we EOL 1.2 and don't have to deal with SourceForge
    > anymore.
    >
    >> I suspect given your goals above, a few beta releases, etc we might be
    >> aiming for a final 3.0 release toward the end of the year.
    >
    > I won't be giving any time predictions, but I think end of 2008 is likely
    > too optimistic. Maybe in the future we'll implement better release scope
    > management to ensure shorter cycles, but now we have too many loose ends.
    >
    > Andrus
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jun 18 2008 - 18:59:52 EDT