On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:54 PM, David Jencks wrote: > 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?
It's there: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/javaee-api-6.0-1-tomcat.jar > 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. Adjusted the build so it won't be included. > 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) Understood. I added explicit dependencies on the source jars and that seems to have done the trick in ensuring consistency. > 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. Those are also there. The published javaee-api-6.0-1-sources.jar contains the expected 1195 java source files. The javaee-api-6.0-1-tomcat-sources.jar contains the expected 1059 java source files. > 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 added the same manifest bits from the geronimo-ejb_3.1_spec pom. I hope that I added it correctly :) > 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. Sounds familiar :) "I'm not going to vote -1 but I also don't feel I can vote +1 either. I'm planning to fix geronimo's similar problems soon at which point without strong arguments I'll start voting -1 to situations like this." http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200905.mbox/%[email protected]%3E My understanding was that if the shade plugin were to create source jars, it would address your concerns -- hence the desire to ensure tools like shade create source jars. I could easily be misunderstanding the essence of the post. I think that covers all the concerns. New binaries rolled and a new vote coming up! Thank you for the time and attention to detail! -David > 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 >> >
