Hi,
On 12/16/15 5:06 PM, Petar Tahchiev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> do we already have the jsrNNN-experts_at_jpa-spec.java.net
> <mailto: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.
since it is an MR we're going to use this - users - mailing. Feel free
to post them either here or file them directly to the issue tracker[1].
thanks,
--lukas
[1]:
https://java.net/jira/browse/JPA_SPEC
>
> Thanks.
>
> 2015-12-16 18:03 GMT+02:00 Lukas Jungmann <lukas.jungmann_at_oracle.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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:
>>
>> "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