JSR-333

[David Buchmann]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hi everybody,

i just finalized the necessary updates for being adjusted to JSR 333,
the JCR 2.1 standard. where there are deprecated methods, i just
dropped them (jackalope was not implementing most of them anyways) and
they got all replaced with something new that makes more sense so
nothing is lost. the bigger part are new additions anyways, some of
them suggested by us to improve performance.

https://github.com/phpcr/phpcr/pull/52

please have a look at this PR (and if you want to try things, checkout
jackalope-jackrabbit jsr-333 and manually put the jackalope/jackalope,
phpcr/phpcr and phpcr/phpcr-api-tests on jsr-333 each)

i wonder about the tagging and naming. we already tagged 2.1.0-beta
versions - but this is a bigger change than we had before. should i
tag some 2.0-beta before merging, for those who want to not update
immediately (looking at you, midgard :-)?

cheers,david
- --
Liip AG // Agile Web Development // T +41 26 422 25 11
CH-1700 Fribourg // PGP 0xA581808B // www.liip.ch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQvSkSAAoJED/JtliXIA4sMXIIAJo3B0S0ME2OaXvzsscZ+FPB
jpphJZiE1BceXgfLWOz9BKJhn4wfvnUDYfnMhOz5CI5gNewa8pTG+6WlBXH24GXV
glY+DCqThpJdO+cEDJgrlpo5hU9NNorjfSp/LGP1it66bDxshe88jjIdiuxwIv96
RmsNs3i3JAPuoiYCnS3/5A4vuXnW8n+bqmrJaoT0FBxsPKMlroKQ75Gb/y0IX8s0
/v/Qgl4+/8d3rlxhc6EhfusPwUpv2r7xy7xpJPayA6ZeYLG4APuVWdKST+pWfOZj
JFnDXYesDLIlsP5GBuekCrZybqsuM5Hkn3Y0Q21JdLD0IngF0wT6kN7ZmYRhn+I=
=5Fcg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On Dec 3, 2012, at 23:34 , David Buchmann <david.b...@liip.ch> wrote:

> i wonder about the tagging and naming. we already tagged 2.1.0-beta
> versions - but this is a bigger change than we had before. should i
> tag some 2.0-beta before merging, for those who want to not update
> immediately (looking at you, midgard :-)?

sounds like a good idea.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
m...@pooteeweet.org

[David Buchmann]

>> i wonder about the tagging and naming. we already tagged 2.1.0-beta
>> versions - but this is a bigger change than we had before. should i
>> tag some 2.0-beta before merging, for those who want to not update
>> immediately (looking at you, midgard :-)?
>
> sounds like a good idea.

you are aware that this would mean creating a lower version number after
those higher numbers? otherwise we can also do the next 2.1.0-beta
number before merging.

cheers,david

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On Dec 4, 2012, at 8:54 , David Buchmann <da...@liip.ch> wrote:

>>> i wonder about the tagging and naming. we already tagged 2.1.0-beta
>>> versions - but this is a bigger change than we had before. should i
>>> tag some 2.0-beta before merging, for those who want to not update
>>> immediately (looking at you, midgard :-)?
>>
>> sounds like a good idea.
>
> you are aware that this would mean creating a lower version number after
> those higher numbers? otherwise we can also do the next 2.1.0-beta
> number before merging.

uhm no ..
i was expecting 2.1.0-beta-[1, 2 ..]

http://semver.org

[Piotr Pokora]

Hi!

> i wonder about the tagging and naming. we already tagged 2.1.0-beta
> versions - but this is a bigger change than we had before. should i
> tag some 2.0-beta before merging, for those who want to not update
> immediately (looking at you, midgard :-)?

All phpcr-midgard2 tests pass with current phpcr, so tagging is good idea.
Choose the best version number you want, as long as all is
installable and doesn't break anything.

Piotras

[David Buchmann]

alright, i just tagged 2.1.0-beta7. main difference to beta6 is that the
code is PSR-2 compliant. i don't think we had any code relevant changes
in between.

now what will be the tag after the merge? just beta8? or RC1? or is it
too early to call it RC? i must concede we should have tagged alpha
until now...

as peter from the jcr side suggested, i will let this PR wait a few days
so that he can also have a look (and i stumbled over some naming issues
that we might want to correct in both jcr and phpcr or not)

for those intereseted, the java side issue of my findings is
http://java.net/jira/browse/JSR_333-64

cheers,david

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:31 , David Buchmann <da...@liip.ch> wrote:

> alright, i just tagged 2.1.0-beta7. main difference to beta6 is that the
> code is PSR-2 compliant. i don't think we had any code relevant changes
> in between.
>
> now what will be the tag after the merge? just beta8? or RC1? or is it
> too early to call it RC? i must concede we should have tagged alpha

> until now…

lets stay with beta.

> as peter from the jcr side suggested, i will let this PR wait a few days
> so that he can also have a look (and i stumbled over some naming issues
> that we might want to correct in both jcr and phpcr or not)

ok. do we have the Jackalope changes ready?

[David Buchmann]

>> as peter from the jcr side suggested, i will let this PR wait a few days
>> so that he can also have a look (and i stumbled over some naming issues
>> that we might want to correct in both jcr and phpcr or not)
>
> ok. do we have the Jackalope changes ready?

sure:

https://github.com/phpcr/phpcr-api-tests/pull/74
https://github.com/jackalope/jackalope/pull/136
https://github.com/jackalope/jackalope-jackrabbit/pull/26

i think for doctrine-dbal there will be no changes, as the only change
on jackrabbit transport was about the event fetching interface which we
don't do with doctrine anyways.

cheers,david