users@jpa-spec.java.net

[jpa-spec users] Re: Feedback on the JPA 2.2 MR process...

From: Petar Tahchiev <paranoiabla_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:06:52 +0200

Hello,

do we already have the jsrNNN-experts_at_jpa-spec.java.net mailing list? I
have a set of issues I'd like to see included in this MR, but i'm not sure
where to post them.

Thanks.

2015-12-16 18:03 GMT+02:00 Lukas Jungmann <lukas.jungmann_at_oracle.com>:

> Hi,
>
> comments inline...
>
> On 12/16/15 4:51 PM, arjan tijms wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict_at_apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Will not the JPA 2.2. process comb the backlog to see what other good
>> issues can be included? I watched the presentation too and know EclipseLink
>> has many supposed 2.2 features already prototyped; I just wasn't expecting
>> it to be the end-all of the entire feature set.
>>
>
> I can't speak for the MR/spec lead, but I interpreted the given list as
> just an initial list of issues that seem likely. For clarity this list is:
>
> * CDI support in attribute converters
> * Meta annotations
> * Repeating annotations
>
>
> this is already prototyped in RI and is currently being formalized for the
> spec itself. I'm hoping to send out the wording for the review by the group
> by mid-January.
>
>
> * Date/time support
> * Stream support in queries
> * JPQL/SQL string from Query
>
> * Autocloseable for entity manager/factory (for Java SE)
> * Pagination support for JPQL and Criteria
> * Creating criteria from query
> * Subquery(entityType) to criteria
> * Query metamodel by entity name
> * NoSQL
> * Multitenacy
>
> The "problem" is of course that it's a MR, not a full spec revision with a
> selected EG etc. And a MR has a limited scope and doesn't have an official
> EG etc. I'd rather seen an official full release given the amount of issues
> that are still open for JPA and the fact that JPA is arguably one of the
> most important specs in Java EE (I'd personally say it's only second to
> CDI).
>
>
> one more item which is missing in the list and which would be good to
> tackle is improving integration between JPA and CDI based on issues filed
> in the tracker, at least those doable within the scope of an MR.
>
> thanks,
> --lukas
>
>
> Yet, a MR is better than nothing.
>
> Kind regards,
> Arjan Tijms
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Marlow < <smarlow_at_redhat.com>
>> smarlow_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have some feedback that I would like to share about the JPA 2.2
>>> process (see <users_at_javaee-spec.java.net>users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
>>> email [1]). While, I enjoyed listening to Lukas Jungmann's presentation
>>> [2], I am disappointed to not yet be able to participate in the discussion
>>> of what changes should be in JPA 2.2. I think it is very important that we
>>> follow the JCP 2.9 1.1.1 [3] guidance. I think that the easiest way to
>>> ensure that the substantial development of the JPA 2.2 MR specification is
>>> observable, is to immediately start a jsrNNN-experts_at_jpa-spec.java.net
>>> mailing list.
>>>
>>> I also would like to congratulate Lukas Jungmann, on being the new JPA
>>> specification lead! :-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists/users/archive/2015-11/message/1
>>>
>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OKEpg5zpsU#t=4h19m26s
>>>
>>> [3] Section 1.1.1 from <https://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2_9>
>>> https://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2_9:
>>>
>>> "PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
>>> Expert Groups may choose to keep purely administrative matters private,
>>> but all substantive business must be performed in a manner that allows the
>>> public to observe their work and to respond to it. All proceedings,
>>> discussions, and working documents must be published, and a mechanism must
>>> be established to allow the public to provide feedback. One common way of
>>> meeting these requirements is through the use of mailing lists, but other
>>> alternatives such as blogs, Wikis, and discussion forums may be preferred.
>>> Whatever communication mechanisms are chosen, these must include an
>>> archiving function so that a record of all communications is preserved.
>>> Archives must be readable by the public. 3
>>> "
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Regards, Petar!
Karlovo, Bulgaria.
---
Public PGP Key at:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611
Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF  55A5 1965 8550 C311 0611