+1 Lg, Strub
> Am 30.03.2016 um 09:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > Just checked and our spec jar passes sigtest. Not sure for this week > but think we can run a vote next one if nobody objects - don't > hesitate to ping if nothing happens ;). > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber > > > 2016-03-30 9:20 GMT+02:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>: >> TCK does contain the sigtest: >> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/tree/master/sigtest >> >> Looking forward to getting the 1.0 version :) >> >> D. >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[email protected]> a écrit >>> : >>>> >>>> I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with >>> flying colors :) >>> >>> True! Totally forgot tck were open! Didn't check sigtest, is it there too? >>> If so nothing blocking a 1.0. >>> >>>> We have it integrated into our build routine and verify it using our CI >>> tests. In addition, it was verified by one of the JCache spec leads, Greg >>> Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec. >>>> >>>> Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR? >>>> >>>> D. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>>> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still >>> not ;)): >>>>> >>>>> TCK are not only @Test but also some bianary validations (aka sigtest >>>>> or signature tests) the spec jars need to pass. It basically checks >>>>> you respect the spec signature for the supported java version of the >>>>> spec. Not having TCK and not being related to a public spec (like BVal >>>>> or JBatch) makes this sigtest validation missing @asf side so until we >>>>> get this or somebody checks generated bytecode of spec jars (and not >>>>> sources) then we'll not use final versions to not show a spec >>>>> compliance we maybe don't have. >>>>> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>> [email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from >>> Geronimo, >>>>>>> but I am still very confused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when >>> creating >>>>>>> a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked >>> against an >>>>>>> implementation, not a spec. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm confused by this statement as well. TCK is only applied to impl >>> so not >>>>>> sure why you might think that. >>>>>> >>>>>> What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release >>> indicates that >>>>>> no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant. One of the JSR >>>>>> requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR. If someone can do >>> that, >>>>>> then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the >>>>>>>>> JCache >>>>>>>> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any >>>>>>>> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or >>> depending on >>>>>>>> the spec must be compliant with the spec. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different >>> matter, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the >>> compliance >>>>>>>> with a certain spec and pass the TCK. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am I wrong? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament < >>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, >>>>>>>>>> geronimo >>>>>>>> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. >>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on >>> the >>>>>>>> final version but with minor tweaks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the >>> JMS 2 >>>>>>>> spec. >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 >>>>>>>>>> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just >>>>>>>>>> alpha2 >>>>>>>> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the >>>>>>>> API >>> is >>>>>>>> sane. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to >>>>>>>>>>> TCK. >>> Are >>>>>>>> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the >>>>>>>> TCK >>> [1]? >>>>>>>> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK >>> seems to >>>>>>>> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck >>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate >>> binary >>>>>>>> compat >>>>>>>>>>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything >>> else. If >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>> 1.0 >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < >>> [email protected]> a >>>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Romain, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on >>>>>>>>>>>>> version >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0 >>>>>>>> [1], >>>>>>>>>>>>> while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any chance you can upgrade the version? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are >>> owned by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> umbrella >>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring >>> to: >>> >>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Geronimo community! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>> 2.0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> license >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented >>> JCache >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what >>> steps >>>>>>>> do we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version >>> licensed >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Setrakyan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >> >>
