specifications icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
specifications copied to clipboard

Jakarta Query Socialization

Open starksm64 opened this issue 1 year ago • 8 comments

Prior to moving the Jakarta Query project into a public review phase, I would like to complete a discussion of any concerns that might exist at the specification committee level.

Socialization of the concept amongst developers has been well received, and the initial committer list has been expanded to include all JPA and Jakarta Data leads.

Are there any issues that need to be addressed before we move forward with the Jakarta Query proposal?

starksm64 avatar Oct 14 '24 19:10 starksm64

Thanks @starksm64! It will be brought to the attention of the spec committee tomorrow.

ivargrimstad avatar Oct 15 '24 16:10 ivargrimstad

Is this about socialization of Jakarta Data (title) or Query (body)?

pzygielo avatar Oct 15 '24 16:10 pzygielo

What is Jakarta Query, I can not find the introduction in eclipse.org or Github.com.

hantsy avatar Oct 25 '24 07:10 hantsy

As I understand it, Jakarta Query will be a new specification project where JPQL and JDQL are specified. That means moving them out of Jakarta Persistence and Jakarta Data.

ivargrimstad avatar Oct 26 '24 05:10 ivargrimstad

What is Jakarta Query, I can not find the introduction in eclipse.org or Github.com.

@hantsy The idea was first proposed in the JPA discussion here:

https://github.com/jakartaee/persistence/issues/603#issuecomment-2071098093

With the advent of Jakarta Data, the need is now more pressing, since, with JDQL being a well defined subset of JPQL, we need a "neutral ground" to evolve the full language and its subset in a unified, consistent way, so that it meets the needs of both its "clients".

gavinking avatar Oct 30 '24 08:10 gavinking

@starksm64 I think maybe the title of the issue is not what you intended.

gavinking avatar Oct 30 '24 08:10 gavinking

@ivargrimstad Was this discussed at the spec committee? It would be good to get a green light on moving Jakarta Data forward.

For some reason I don't think it has been on the agenda yet. I'll add it explicitly for the meeting today

starksm64 avatar Nov 11 '24 21:11 starksm64

@starksm64 It was discussed in the Spec Committee today, and no initial comments or objections were put forward. So you can go ahead with the proposal. Note that there may be more opinions voiced as the proposal is further detailed.

ivargrimstad avatar Nov 13 '24 17:11 ivargrimstad

Can we close this issue?

otaviojava avatar Sep 29 '25 06:09 otaviojava