On 3/8/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > Hola,
> > A couple of questions:
> >
> >> :Core Developers:
> >> Fourteen of the initial committers are BEA employees. One of those is a
> >> committer on the Apache JDO project. We anticipate that five of these
> >> fourteen will be involved in the core code development, and the other
> >> nine will be involved in documentation and ongoing QA for the project.
> >
> > Must the other 9 have commit privileges? If they're doing docs and
> > QA, most of what they'll be doing is available via JIRA or whatever
> > issue tracker is set up.
>
> There's no harm in QA and docs people having commit, especially if they
> are working on SVN-based QA infrastructure and/or documentation that has
> some permanence and structure in a reusable format. :)
>
> (We had a doco person as a committer in Velocity many years ago w/ no
> downside, and <joke> we'd be breaking new ground having formal QA people
> in an open source project </joke> )
:)
it's best to keep as much development as possible in the open. so, QA
related documentation would want to be available through SVN and that means
commit privilages. it would also probably make JIRA administration more
obvious and open.
> >> JPA is for use in any Java application, not just J2EE. Therefore, any
> >> application that needs to do data persistence in the object/relational
> >> style (including any application that currently uses Hibernate) will
> >> benefit from Open JPA.
> >
> > Would it make sense for this to go in DB or Jakarta, then? The
> > Geronimo association implies a J2EE container in my mind.
>
> It makes far more sense in DB, although it makes sense as a TLP as well
> (as much as anything does). I don't see the Jakarta link other than
> it's in Java.
+1
the only caveat being DB is feeling a little bit umbrella-ish these days.
perhaps a federation of related communities might solve that one, though...
a TLP feels more natural to me. but we could leave this decision till
graduation...
This is a peer technology to JDO2, for example, and arguably wouldn't
> exist if not for the cesspool of politics that surrounded The Great
> EJB3/JDO2 War of 2004. I suspect though that it will have a far larger
> community given the popularity and hype around the spec.
>
> The Geronimo associations are due to the fact that EJB3, the EJB version
> for J2EE 5, has a subspec that it's own core persistence engine. That
> is what JPA is. ("Son of EJB3") So Geronimo can use OpenJPA as the
> persistence engine for it's EJB3 implementation, but the spec for JPA is
> explicit in it not requiring J2EE or EJB - it's for general use in J2SE,
> just like Hibernate, for example.
>
> When we've discussed how Roller, for example, can shed it's Hibernate
> dependency, I've suggested that Roller switch to the "EJB3 persistence
> API" that Hibernate also implements has so that some future Apache
> Licensed implementation could be substituted to comply with distribution
> requirements. OpenJPA is one such Apache Licensed implementation, or
> will hopefully soon be.
+1
- robert
