yes, they are the parents for the various g projects. flava5 is for java5 projects, flava6 for java6,....
LieGrue, strub > Am 04.06.2018 um 18:15 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > Don't recall but do we need flava anymore? > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 18:09, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit : > Just to get this down to paper somehow. > The following is a list of specs I'd going to release: > > Sending geronimo-activation_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-annotation_1.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-annotation_1.3_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-atinject_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-availability_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-concurrent_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-ejb_3.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-ejb_3.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-el_2.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-interceptor_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-interceptor_1.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.6_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jacc_1.4_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaspic_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-javamail_1.5_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxb_2.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxb_2.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxb_2.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxrs_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxrs_2.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxrs_2.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxws_2.1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxws_2.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jaxws_2.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jbatch_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jcdi_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jms_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jms_2.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jpa_2.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-json_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-json_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jsonb_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jsp_2.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jta_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-jta_1.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-osgi-support/geronimo-osgi-itesta/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-osgi-support/geronimo-osgi-itestb/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-osgi-support/geronimo-osgi-locator/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-osgi-support/geronimo-osgi-registry/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-osgi-support/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-saaj_1.3_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-servlet_3.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-servlet_3.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-stax-api_1.2_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-validation_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-validation_1.1_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-validation_2.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-websockets_1.0_spec/pom.xml > Sending geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec/pom.xml > > > I've removed ancient specs which are not maintained anymore like the Client > Profile. > > Do we also want to pimp the flava projects? Should I release those as well? > The natural order would be to release all the osgi base stuff in one go, then > take on a few other specs in bigger bundles until the whole list is worked > off. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 04.06.2018 um 16:36 schrieb Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: > > > > I'm with Romain on this one. There is a ticket open for various MP specs. > > We should evaluate this and then push for it to be fixed. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > >> Am 04.06.2018 um 15:09 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > >> > >> Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 13:45, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit > >> : > >> They support OSGi due to liberty's requirements. How they do it is up to > >> them. Can you please elaborate on what is wrong with the current OSGi > >> headers? > >> > >> Nop, liberty does it all wrong. They force setGlobalProvider in the API > >> and this is not needed as any geronimo spec jar or aries shows. This leads > >> to an unsafe user accessible API which is not thread safe and a server > >> destructor :(. > >> We need https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/pull/9 and at least > >> SPI-Provider header, spifly can be nice too - is used today. > >> > >> > >> And the issue with Java 9 is that you can end up with multiple copies of > >> the packages. > >> > >> This is not really an issue, no more than today actually since it is the > >> same ones with the same content. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, 7:42 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 13:36, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit > >> : > >> We should be fixing the MP spec JARs rather than implementing our set of > >> JARs. It creates confusion and will lead to inability to run on Java 9. > >> > >> Last point is wrong since we'll put the same automatic module name. > >> I'm fine with the first proposal if we have a way to guarantee 1. we can > >> get the releases fast enough (< 2 weeks) and 2. they will embrace > >> spifly+javacontract on OSGi side. Any of you (more involved in MP > >> community) able to check that out before we close that topic please? > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, 3:57 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> Well b doesn't solve 3, any way we get karma to do the releases? This > >> would solve that neatly. > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > >> > >> > >> Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 09:52, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit : > >> 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 <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > > >
