First, sorry because I created another thread. Well at least it means it was something to discuss :)
I would be also in favor of contributing to MP and adding the missing integration points like OSGi as opposed to copy source code. Like Mark, I should be able to help in most of them and even probably release. I agree it was a pain, but let's put this in the context: with all the Jakarta, Microprofile, there have been a lot of changes. People were not used to the rules @Eclipse. And there were some technical aspects as well. Did not help probably. Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:05, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>
