Sounds great. Thanks Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:58, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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 >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>
