Le sam. 29 févr. 2020 à 16:17, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> a écrit :
> Btw, the whole module system is a big fail. > There are right now discussions in BIG projects to skip all that and > revert to just plain jars again. > > The point is that we right now have our own sources and are fine with it. > I really don't understand the point of changing this in a minor version. > There are a few thgs to consider I think: 1. There is this 1 for 1000 users of jpms so even if a failure, we should comply with it today 2. We must ensure to have the same name than the official spec jar otherwise your link descriptor - module info - looses its portability 3. We must not deliver the spec jar transitively so the one we build against must not be important except for the assembly (if no more relevant we can drop it IMHO) Now, if the action is to rerelease jpa geronimo jar with the official mofule name, lets just do it if jakarta jar license is not asf friendly - will be needed for asf projects delivering it anyway. Hope it makes sense. > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 29.02.2020 um 16:09 schrieb Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID > >: > > > > Sorry that this slipped. This imo needs further discussion. > > The license aspect is not clear imo. > > We also break many downstream openjpa users which had their whole > toolset tailored for geronimo-specs. > > > > I'm +1 for a revert and cleanup of geronimo-jpa-spec. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > >> Am 25.12.2019 um 12:40 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> You are right > >> this change breaks java8 build > >> OK, my PR will stay the same :)) > >> >
