I don't have them handy but maybe we should get in touch with aries guys. Seems current OSGi@MP is driven by liberty profile and they don't seem to be aware of recent OSGi update leading to API pollution which is pretty bad for end users. Will try to ping a few OSGi@asf guys I know to get help on that.
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 09:55, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>
