Sounds reasonable to me.
One question only: It is guaranteed that the JPA spec itself never will do
a micro update, right? I.e. the spec would never be updated from say 2.2 to
2.2.1 (but to 2.3 in this case)?
2013/8/27 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>
> I am contemplating duplicating[1] our existing JPA API jars to use a
> better GAV naming scheme, specifically the GAV naming scheme we plan on
> adopting for any new JPA specs. We have used completely different
> naming scheme for 1.0 then we did for 2.0 and 2.1. And even for 2.0 and
> 2.1 we used the JPA version in the artifactId rather than the version
> portion of GAV.
>
> The new scheme being proposed would be to use the groupId we have been
> using for 2.0/2.1 ("org.hibernate.javax.persistence"). We would use the
> artifactId we have been using for 2.0/2.1, but without the 2.0/2.1
> portion. Currently, for example, we have "hibernate-jpa-2.1-api" as the
> artifactId; this would become just "hibernate-jpa-api". We'd then move
> the JPA version as *part of* the GAV version. Essentially the GAV
> version would be broken into buckets with JPA version taking up the
> first 2 positions, a "bugfix" position, and then a qualifier. Given
> 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1 that would give us:
> 1) org.hibernate.javax.persistence:hibernate-jpa-api:1.0.0.Final.jar
> 2) org.hibernate.javax.persistence:hibernate-jpa-api:2.0.0.Final.jar
> 3) org.hibernate.javax.persistence:hibernate-jpa-api:2.1.0.Final.jar
>
> I would only duplicate the last of each of 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1 into the new
> naming.
>
> Moving forward, the only thing that "changes" would be qualifiers if/as
> we start working on new spec versions and possibly "bugfix" portion (the
> last '0') if we encounter problems in the jpa api jars after the fact
> (normal bugfix semantics). We are discussing standardizing on this
> across the JBoss community and specifically discussing how to handle the
> qualifiers for ongoing work. One option would be a new qualifier
> "Draft". It fits reasonably well in the existing (OSGi defined) alpha
> sorting of qualifiers aside from the Draft->Final jump (what about
> "Proposed Final Drafts"?). Personally I do not like the direct tie to
> specific spec Drafts; personally I know sometimes I publish spec jars
> that do not cleanly map to a Draft. I personally prefer using Beta for
> Drafts, CR for Proposed Final Drafts and Final for, well, Final
> Drafts. We'll have to see how that works itself out though.
>
> Anyway, any issues/concerns with duplicating these historical artifacts?
>
> [1] I am thinking of duplicating rather than "relocating" since I am not
> sure how well tools handle relocated artifacts in general. In fact I
> think tools (Maven itself included) simply fail to resolve the relocated
> artifact.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
