tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: TomEE -Java EE 8 compatible or certified ?
Date Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:54:47 GMT
Thanks :)

We are currently using OpenJPA, and I'm a little bit worried regarding my
next steps if I have to change it to something else.
Hibernate is not an option due to licensing limitations ...

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Matthew Broadhead <
matthew.broadhead@nbmlaw.co.uk> wrote:

> hi Maxim
> i wanted to use full stack TomEE (minimise external dependencies) and it
> seemed the in house JPA option gave me better support from the TomEE team.
> also once i had overcome the differences between EclipseLink and OpenJPA
> OpenJPA seems to work more logically IMHO (less peculiarities).  everyone
> will have their own preference but in my case working with JSF, CDI, CXF
> etc i now feel comfortable with OpenJPA.
>
>
> On 27/09/2017 11:23, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
>
>> Hello Matthew,
>>
>> sorry for off-topic ... why have you migrated from EclipseLink?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matthew Broadhead <
>> matthew.broadhead@nbmlaw.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> i am using TomEE 7.0.3 Plus with OpenJPA in production and haven't had any
>>> problems although i get your point that it is only JPA 2.0. Romain
>>> Manni-Bucau and Mark Struberg have been great with support when I made
>>> the
>>> transition from EclipseLink to OpenJPA.  I also thought I heard the other
>>> day that Mark has been working towards a 3.x release
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/09/2017 07:01, Andy Gumbrecht wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Danilo,
>>>>
>>>> I'd personally only consider Hibernate or EclipseLink as production
>>>> contenders with TomEE. We can certify with either, but can only
>>>> distribute
>>>> EclipseLink.
>>>>
>>>> OpenJPA has lost it's momentum for sure, but that doesn't mean TomEE
>>>> will
>>>> stand still at all. It's only about packaging, so quite trivial really.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I'm sure that being OSS means that anyone willing can dive
>>>> into OpenJPA and make things happen. Even you might like to help?
>>>>
>>>> Andy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/09/17 15:20, Danilo Cominotti Marques wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello, David!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for all the details. However, there is another point that
>>>>> currently
>>>>> worries me: is there any progress on the OpenJPA side of things? By
>>>>> looking
>>>>> at the commits log on GitHub (which should mirror the Apache
>>>>> repository),
>>>>> it doesn't seem like a 3.x release that targets JPA 2.1 will happen
>>>>> anytime
>>>>> soon. Furthermore, the issues targeted at version 3.0.0 in OpenJPA's
>>>>> JIRA
>>>>> seem not to have received any attention for over a year. Therefore,
>>>>> unless
>>>>> I am mistaken about OpenJPA's current condition, I don't see TomEE
>>>>> [non-Plume] implementing all of Java EE 7 soon either, never mind Java
>>>>> EE 8
>>>>> with JPA 2.2.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:02 PM, David Blevins <
>>>>> david.blevins@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Francois!
>>>>>
>>>>>> As Mark mentions the Java EE 8 work is going on now.  It will be
>>>>>> compatible, but not certified -- at least not directly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The story there is the Java EE TCK licensing agreement between Oracle
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Apache expired and is not being renewed due to disagreement on the
>>>>>> terms.
>>>>>> So Apache does not have a Java EE 8 TCK.  With my Apache hat on,
I
>>>>>> worked
>>>>>> with Cameron Purdy, then SVP of Development at Oracle, for over 2
>>>>>> years
>>>>>> trying to get a new agreement made.  When he departed Oracle, the
>>>>>> progress
>>>>>> stopped on the Oracle side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I then switched hats and began pursing things from the Tomitribe.
>>>>>> After a
>>>>>> year we have licensed and paid for a TCK.  We can't legally give
it to
>>>>>> Apache (Oracle's rules) nor can we legally release Apache TomEE
>>>>>> (Apache's
>>>>>> rules), but we can legally certify something that is 100% Apache
>>>>>> TomEE,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> with a different name.  I.e. we can take TomEE zip, rename it, run
it
>>>>>> through the TCK and put it up.  We intend to do that so that Apache
>>>>>> TomEE
>>>>>> releases are in spirit, certified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are some challenges ahead, such as only Tomitribe people can
run
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> TCK or see the results.  Java EE itself is being open sourced, TCKs
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> all, so this will have a better solution long-term. Short-term we'll
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> to power through together as a community and support each other the
>>>>>> best we
>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> David Blevins
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2017, at 8:15 AM, COURTAULT Francois <
>>>>>> Francois.COURTAULT@gemalto.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Java EE 8 is out, could you tell us when a TomEE version will
be
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> least compatible or certified released ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any pointer to TomEE roadmap ? (Maybe an announcement at Oracle Java
>>>>>>> One
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have to wait for TomEE 9 because of Servlet 4.0 ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
>>>>>>> addressees
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use
or
>>>>>> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are
not the
>>>>>> intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the
>>>>>> sender.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
>>>>>>> transmission
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages
caused
>>>>>> by a
>>>>>> transmitted virus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>


-- 
WBR
Maxim aka solomax

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message