I unzipped and built the source-release zip.  It builds a lot more artifacts 
than you show here, is there some reason not to release the -tomcat- artifacts 
too?

The javaee-api-6.0-1.jar has the same README.txt as the 
javaee-api-libs-6.0-1.zip which doesn't seem ideal.
The javaee-api-6.0-1-sources.jar I get only has a few  javax/management/j2ee/ 
and  javax/transaction/ classes in it. (this might be due to how I have my 
local nexus configured, but I'd prefer the build to fail if it can't construct 
a consistent result)

IIUC the reason for not using the maven-bundle-plugin is to generate an 
all-in-one sources jar which doesn't appear to me to be in the list of 
artifacts under vote.

The javaee-api-6.0-1.jar does not include the 
org.apache.geronimo.specs:provider-registry jar contents nor specify an 
appropriate bundle activator which means it will be pretty useless in an osgi 
environment.  It looks to me as if there are 3 bundle activator classes already 
in the jar so maybe using this under osgi is unrealistic.  I'm not sure what 
the activation and jpa activators do.

I don't have any particular objection to releasing these but I think the 
problems above are serious enough so I won't vote +1 at this time.

thanks
david jencks


On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:06 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> One more try with the license and contents issues fixed.
> 
> The staging repo & binaries:
> 
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/javaee-api-6.0-1.jar
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/javaee-api-6.0-1.zip
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/javaee-api-6.0-1-source-release.zip
> 
> Tag:
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/tags/javaee-api-6.0-1
> 
> Ok, we should be good now.
> 
> My +1
> 
> 
> -David
> 

Reply via email to