| Re: [eclipselink-dev] Maven Updates |
Hi Markus,The interfaces you compile against will be the same between vendors. They are defined in the specification. The classes that may be different are the classes with actual implementation.
In the javax.persistence package there are two classes, javax.persistence.Persistence and javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProviderResolverHolder. The implementations of these classes is not set out by the spec and as such may be different between vendors. We have been instructed by various spec leads that that is the way this spec is designed and that the spec does not provide the implementation of these classes.
We also include a couple of classes that enable OSGi usage, but they are in org.eclipse.persistence.* packages.
The bottom line is that if you only depend on interfaces, if you ever have a compile issue moving between vendors, it will be a bug in the code of one of the vendors since those interfaces are part of the spec.
-Tom Markus Karg wrote:
Tom, thank you for your comments, see more below.For the group id issue - due to the way the specification is designed, there are implementations in the javax.persistence classes (i.e. code that will be run, rather than just interfaces - e.g. Persistence.class, ProviderResolverHolder.class + some Provider resolves) The javax.persistence jar we produce is truly an EclipseLink version of javax.persistence. I would expect that different implementers of javax.persistence have different code in several of the classes because of the way the spec classes are defined. For that reason, it seems as if the eclipselink group is a reasonable place for that bundle.But how can get guaranteed then that when I compile my project against EclipseLink's persistence API it will run also on a different implementation? Thanks Markus _______________________________________________ eclipselink-dev mailing list eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev