So not needed if we use apache parent pby - this was my point Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 08:41, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit : > It contains a few standard plugin settings, but that's really it. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 05.06.2018 um 06:52 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > >: > > > > I know that part but never understood why not using apache parent > > > > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 22:06, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit : > > 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 < > [email protected]>: > > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > 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 < > [email protected]>: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 13:45, John D. Ament <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 13:36, John D. Ament <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
