Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949>

Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0?

—
Denis

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the next
> release.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Guys,
>> 
>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several months
>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and 1.0.0 still
>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing to the
>> new one though).
>> 
>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to Geronimo?
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0
>> 
>> -Val
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real
>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever
>>> geronimo project updates the JAR.
>>> 
>>> D.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Folks,
>>>> 
>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going to
>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha?
>>>> 
>>>> -Val
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrak...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the
>> JSR107?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.
>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as
>>> it
>>>> is
>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0.
>>>>> 
>>>>> D.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to