I see, so what about this one: for now we stay like we are @G and once eclipse has released spifly/provider header/contracts meta we drop them since they prooved we dont need it anymore.
Does it sound like a plan? 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 09:14, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 >>> > > >> >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>>
