All fair points, but a.) I don't want to host org.eclipse sources at Apache b.) We can just ship a PR to add those features over there c.) point 4 should not be the case.
So I'd vote -1 LieGrue, strub > Am 04.06.2018 um 09:09 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > Hi guys, > > we have 4 MP implementations I think (failsafe, config, jwt-auth and > opentracing) and 2 of them reused eclipse api jar and 2 uses a geronimo > flavor. > > I'd like us to discuss which flavor we want to align all of them. > > The fact to reuse the API reduces the code we hosts which is not bad but has > these drawbacks: > > 1. when a loader is involved we can't enhance it for our consumers (like > aries) to be compatible with other mecanism than plain java standalone (+ > standard java(ee) mecanism like lib/<spec>.properties which is sometimes used > in users land) > 2. geronimo always provided a good entry point to be OSGi friendly. I saw > that some MP@eclipse jar provided some OSGi work but they rely on a > dependency we don't want in all not OSGi apps + they don't embrace what our > consumers do (spifly+javacontract we will merge soon) > 3. it is very slow to have an eclipse release (opentracing and jwt auth were > a pain and even led to use tck in snapshot to launch the release after having > waited weeks) > 4. if there is some default hardcoded (dont think it is the case yet but it > can likely be appended in 1 to be consistent with the javaee/jakartaee > behavior) then we will want to put our default and not the RI one > > At the end the cost to have the spec jar is almost nothing to not say really > nothing so I'm in favor of ensuring we always host it. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
