# different java-implementations

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907>\
**Category:** Reference Implementation: Java (archive)\
**Created:** [17 January 2007 10:17 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907 "2007-01-17T10:17:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [17 January 2007 10:17 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907/1 "2007-01-17T10:17:12Z")

</div>

I see that there are different Java-implementations, non-splitted and  
splitted.

Will the non-splitted be kept up to date, or do we have to focus on the  
splitted implementation?

Thanks for explanation

Bert

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [17 January 2007 11:10 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907/2 "2007-01-17T11:10:06Z")

</div>

Hi Bert,

Only the splitted RM packages are on the trunk and will receive changes in the future.

Cheers,  
Rong

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [17 January 2007 12:11 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907/3 "2007-01-17T12:11:31Z")

</div>

Rong Chen schreef:

> Hi Bert,
> 
> Only the splitted RM packages are on the trunk and will receive  
> changes in the future.

Ok, thanks. Is it so that fixes (if appropriate) will be backported to  
previous versions?

Bert

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [17 January 2007 13:00 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907/4 "2007-01-17T13:00:40Z")

</div>

Hi Ronmg, since I received a large update this morning over SVN, I have  
problems to find my way.

You know what I am doing (I suppose?)  
Rounding up a OpenEhr implementation based in 1.0.1.

So this position brings me to following questions:

I find:  
Release-1.0.1-RC  
and  
RM-1.0-update

In TAGS I also find a source-tree:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;rm-before-split

What is the meaning, purpose for this. Should I look into all three, can  
you please explain, or point me to an explanation?

I understand, the TRUNK now is not the path I should follow at this  
moment, it is a moving target for developing and eventually testing  
purposes. Or am I wrong? Or partly wrong?

I am having trouble with the TrunkCounter in VersionedObject.  
The main reason for this trouble is that the getter/setter for  
Version\<T\> is not a real POJO getter/setter. It comes to all kind of  
conflicts.  
There are more problems with getter/setters, but I remebered this

I think these have to be redesigned in the future. Will this be  
backported to the Branch-versions, or is there in antother way  
maintenance on a branch version?  
Or do I need to follow the TRUNK and see if something interested in  
context of maintenance of the BRANCH-versions is happening?

Maybe it would be good to have a maintainer for Branch-versions, or do I  
understand the concept wrong?

Thanks  
Bert

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [17 January 2007 13:57 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907/5 "2007-01-17T13:57:05Z")

</div>

> Hi Ronmg, since I received a large update this morning over SVN, I have  
> problems to find my way.
> 
> You know what I am doing (I suppose?)  
> Rounding up a OpenEhr implementation based in 1.0.1.
> 
> So this position brings me to following questions:

Hi Bert,

The Release-1.0.1-RC is the latest stable release. I will soon make a Release-1.0.1-RC2 branch after a few more changes I need to do on the trunk.

> I find:  
> Release-1.0.1-RC  
> and  
> RM-1.0-update
> 
> In TAGS I also find a source-tree:
> 
> rm-before-split

This is a backup branch will be removed soon.

> What is the meaning, purpose for this. Should I look into all three, can  
> you please explain, or point me to an explanation?

Sorry for not informing, will do that for the future branches and tags.

> I understand, the TRUNK now is not the path I should follow at this  
> moment, it is a moving target for developing and eventually testing  
> purposes. Or am I wrong? Or partly wrong?

Exactly, the TRUNK is constantly being updated but nevertheless kept in ‘healthy’ condition as much as possible meaning all code compile, all tests pass. There are times when some components got lag behind the main code base, but for each component project the rule is no code is ever committed if it doesn’t compile or has failed test.

> I am having trouble with the TrunkCounter in VersionedObject.  
> The main reason for this trouble is that the getter/setter for  
> Version is not a real POJO getter/setter. It comes to all kind of  
> conflicts.  
> There are more problems with getter/setters, but I remebered this

> I think these have to be redesigned in the future. Will this be  
> backported to the Branch-versions, or is there in antother way  
> maintenance on a branch version?  
> Or do I need to follow the TRUNK and see if something interested in  
> context of maintenance of the BRANCH-versions is happening?
> 
> Maybe it would be good to have a maintainer for Branch-versions, or do I  
> understand the concept wrong?

Yes, the idea is right. But we should try to reduce the number of branches that we need to maintain over time and try to focus on the development of new components instead.

Cheers,  
Rong

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [17 January 2007 14:15 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907/6 "2007-01-17T14:15:14Z")

</div>

Thanks, Rong, for explaining. if I am Rong. please correct me if I  
misunderstand

For my purpose I can forget about RM-1.0-update and stick to  
Release-1.0.1-RC (until further notice)  
I am then using the complete and latest stable version.  
Also I can forget about the TAG-version, thanks. pffffffffffff

And I can look at the TRUNK version without feeling the urge to run for  
something if something changes there.

This day is ending better then it started

bert

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [17 January 2007 14:21 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907/7 "2007-01-17T14:21:50Z")

</div>

Bert Verhees schreef:

> ```auto
> Thanks, Rong, for explaining. if I am Rong. please correct me if I
> misunderstand
> 
> ```

😉

Stupid mistake, LOL

It must be:

```auto
Thanks, Rong, for explaining. if I am wrong. please correct me if I 
misunderstand

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [20 January 2007 20:22 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/different-java-implementations/15907/8 "2007-01-20T20:22:53Z")

</div>

> Bert Verhees schreef:
> 
> > ```auto
> > Thanks, Rong, for explaining. if I am Rong. please correct me if I
> > misunderstand
> > 
> > ```
> 
> 😉
> 
> Stupid mistake, LOL

I thought it was a joke - which is common to me, don’t know why 😉

/R