Doug,
It was a thread on the dev mailing list (different subject) but got
little traction, so I targeted it to specific individuals. It is
also already being tracked in a bug:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=336179
I am re-submitting this thread to the mailing list.
-Eric
On 2/9/2011 9:03 AM, Tom Ware wrote:
I
think it will be easy to move. There is one jpa xsd in core right
now and I believe it is there to avoid package splitting of the
"xsd" directory :) If it is no longer in the xsd directory, that
problem goes away and we can put it in the JPA component.
douglas clarke wrote:
I agree with Tom and Peter although as
Peter points out this may cause package splitting. Ideally the
XSD and processing logic would be located in the same component.
This seems like a great thread for the eclipselink-dev mailing
list so all interested parties are aware of the discussion.
Alternatively open a bug for moving the XSDs explaining the
rationale and the benefits. Then discussion can be held on the
dev list or in the bug.
Doug
On 09/02/2011 8:47 AM, Peter Krogh wrote:
+1... With a caveat. Currently (I
believe) the jpa xsds are in core. If they stay in the core
bundle, they need to be in the jpa package - if that makes
sense.
Peter Krogh
On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Tom Ware
<tom.ware@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I vote to exclude the .xsd.
i.e. put the xsds in
- org.eclipse.persistence
- org.eclipse.persistence.jpa
- org.eclipse.persistence.jaxb
- org.eclipse.persistence.dbws.builder
This will match some of the Java libraries. e.g.
javax.persistence
-Tom
Eric Gwin wrote:
Hi,
We have a motion and a second to move the XSDs per
component into the package structure:
org.eclipse.persistence.<component>.xsd
By <component> I'm talking about:
core, jpa, moxy, and dbws.builder because those are the
component bundles that currently ship XSDs, However,
oracle, sdo, etc. could be included if xsds are ever
needed to be packaged in those component bundles.
Unless there are objections to the above proposal (I'll
take abstention as a +1) by EOD today, I'll begin planning
the specifics of the work. If there are objections we can
discuss the issue in the meeting tomorrow.
Personally, I think o.e.p.xsd.<component> would work
just as well for the osgi bundles, and would fit better in
eclipselink.jar when all the bundles are folded together.
However, I want to get this issue resolved before Friday
(transaction in before Thursday's nightly), as it is an
issue for another team (they have a temporary work-around)
and I'm out next week.
-Eric -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [eclipselink-dev] Opinions please...
(especially from leads)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:35:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Norman <MICHAEL.NORMAN@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Dev mailing list for Eclipse Persistence
Services <eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
+1 for org.eclipse.persistence.<component>.xsd
----- Original Message -----
From: neil.hauge@xxxxxxxxxx
To: eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2011 1:21:37 PM GMT -05:00
US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [eclipselink-dev] Opinions please...
(especially from leads)
Generally speaking, packages need to be qualified,
especially in the OSGi world. In addition, component
should come first (after project root) as a qualifier. So
I would suggest:
org.eclipse.persistence.<component>
or
org.eclipse.persistence.<component>.xsd
Neil
On 2/7/2011 11:35 AM, Eric Gwin wrote:
Regarding core circular dependency issue.... For full
history see:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=336179
The basic question I'm trying to answer is: "Which
package structure
makes more sense?"
We have a proposal to move the component specific XSDs
from "xsd/"
in multiple bundles (which creates a split package) to
xsd/<component>
We also currently have some xsd files residing in
org/eclipse/persistence/<component> as well as
the xsd/ package.
Which makes more sense? o/e/p/component or
xsd/component
I can see potential advantages to both,
(o.e.p.component is probably
safer, but xsd.component is probably more
intuative/clear) but am
wondering if there are strong opinions out there either
way.
-- -Eric
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Eric Gwin | Senior Software Developer
Phone: +613 288 4622 <about:blank> | | Fax: +613
2382818
<about:blank> | | Mobile: +613 8582347
<about:blank>
Oracle Java Server Technologies
ORACLE Canada | 45 O'Connor St., Ottawa, Ontario | K1P
6L2
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>
Oracle is committed
to developing practices and products that help protect
the environment
_______________________________________________
eclipselink-dev mailing list
eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
_______________________________________________
eclipselink-dev mailing list eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
--
-Eric
Eric Gwin | Senior Software Developer
Phone: +613 288 4622 | |
Fax: +613 2382818 | |
Mobile: +613 8582347
Oracle Java Server Technologies
ORACLE Canada | 45 O'Connor St., Ottawa, Ontario | K1P 6L2
Oracle is committed to developing practices and
products that help protect the environment
|
