Sounds a good plan. Can you send a PR on the eclipse projects? I can review them there and most likely get them merged or help pushing
Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:36, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 >>>> > > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>>
