Re: Re: Default/Initial values && post validation delegates etc

From: Michael Gentry (blacknex..mail.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 2006 - 11:46:53 EDT

  • Next message: Andrus Adamchik: "Re: Default/Initial values && post validation delegates etc"

    At the bottom of http://cwiki.apache.org/CAY/ is "Making Sense of
    Release Numbers". 2.0 is supposed to track 1.2 and be a stable
    release, but with the apache namespace instead of the objectstyle
    namespace. 1.2/2.0 will continue to have bug fixes incorporated in
    them, so they aren't really dead. 3.0 is where the new development is
    occurring. When 2.0.x is released (there are a few CLA issues slowing
    it down), I'd suggest using it if you won't be caused too much
    heartburn by the package name changes. However, there is no real
    reason to switch to 2.0 if you already have an investment in 1.2 and
    are happy with it. Did that help?

    /dev/mrg

    On 9/12/06, Aristedes Maniatis <ar..sh.com.au> wrote:
    >
    > On 12/09/2006, at 11:45 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
    >
    > > On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
    > >
    > >> If not - maybe I can put a vote in for a delegate method being
    > >> added which is called just prior to the object return. ala
    > >> awakeFromInsertion(ObjectContext) :-)
    > >
    > > BTW, JPA spec [1] defines a bunch of callback annotations
    > > (PrePersist, PostPersist, PreRemove, PostRemove, PreUpdate,
    > > PostUpdate, PostLoad). We need to think of a way to bring them to
    > > Cayenne proper even if it doesn't operate in the "JPA mode".
    > >
    > > Andrus
    > >
    > > [1] http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=220
    > >
    >
    >
    > Won't JPA require that Cayenne move to the 1.5 JDK to use
    > annotations? Will that be a requirement of Cayenne 3.0?
    >
    > To be honest I'm a little confused about the relationships between
    > 1.2.x, 2.0 and 3.0. Is there a feature list/road map which defines
    > what 3.0 will look like and what it will be striving to achieve? Will
    > there be 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc to match each of 1.2.1, 1.2.2, etc but
    > with the changed package names? Or is 2.0 a dead branch now?
    >
    > Since the pain of moving from 1.2 to 2.0 should be trivial for most
    > people, is it worth abandoning 1.2.x completely and having just one
    > stable branch?
    >
    >
    > Ari Maniatis
    >
    >
    > -------------------------->
    > ish
    > http://www.ish.com.au
    > Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
    > phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
    > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Sep 12 2006 - 11:47:23 EDT