I'm OK with reverting if Automatic-Module-Name will be specified What is wrong with Jakarta licensing? Tomcat-10-M1 was just released with jakarta jars ....
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 22:23, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le sam. 29 févr. 2020 à 16:17, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] > > >: > > > > > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >> You are right > > >> this change breaks java8 build > > >> OK, my PR will stay the same :)) > > >> > > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
