Trying to pull this message up in the list. If we want to release Apache TomEE 8.0.0 before CodeOne, we need JavaMail, Activation and some others. For the others, I think I managed to get them up for vote and ready.
For Activation and JavaMail it's also an implementation so there is more work involved and I am not sure we can get it done by CodeOne. Of course it's not a good reason, but I still want to revive this topic so we can decide all together how we want to proceed. Do we update/create our specs in Geronimo? Do we use the eclipse jars? thoughts -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:53 AM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2019, at 2:05 AM, Alex The Rocker <alex.m3...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Okay; for EDL I see it's compatible with Apache licensing, but > > strangely, JAXB license does not look like an EDL: > > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxb-api/blob/2.3.2/LICENSE.md > > > > Am I mistaking or this is actually "cheesy" ? > > I pulled down the official text here and did a quick reformat to match it > to the LICENSE.md > > - https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php > > Sans the copyright statement, both came out identical in a diff, so we > appear good. > > We will want to make sure our NOTICE file does contain the copyright > statement, so that is a definitely good catch. > > > -David > > > Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 10:37, David Blevins <dblev...@tomitribe.com> a > écrit : > >> > >>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:23 AM, Alex The Rocker <alex.m3...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> How about JAXB which is not EPL but EDL 1.0 ? > >>> (see https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxb-api/tree/2.3.2) > >> > >> EDL is an approved license. Here's the complete naughty and nice list > as it where :) > >> > >> - https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html > >> > >> The interesting thing about jaxb-api is there is only one > implementation in the world and it is also EDL and no longer included in > the JVM. If we typed in the API, 98% of the other JAXB code we ship would > still be EDL. > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >>> Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 10:16, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >>>> > >>>> This is really the better thread to talk about how to handle the gaps > in our Java EE 8 APIs and support. > >>>> > >>>> As noted, there is not license victory to be won. We have had EPL > and CDDL dependencies since v1.0 in 2011. > >>>> > >>>> From a Geronimo perspective, we typed in the APIs and created all > those spec jars because there were no open source options that weren't the > JBoss GPL versions. GlassFish didn't exist yet. When GlassFish came > about, we kept up the practice largely out of habit. We did have an > unavoidable CDDL via the xml schemas and JAXB RI, so our licensing victory > wasn't quite there. > >>>> > >>>> This is really a resources and timeline issue. > >>>> > >>>> Some of these specs are actually implementations, specifically: > >>>> > >>>> - JavaMail 1.6 > >>>> - JACC 1.6 > >>>> - Activation 1.2 > >>>> > >>>> If we decide we want the Geronimo versions to be upgraded > (implemented) and this is important for TomEE 8, we should expect that to > ship sometime 2020. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> David Blevins > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>> > >>>>> On Aug 13, 2019, at 12:10 AM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I did a small gap-analysis of where we're still short on Java EE 8 > APIs from the perspective of our javaee-api jar: > >>>>> > >>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2620 > >>>>> > >>>>> Specific callouts are these APIs are also implementations, so > switching to the equivalent Jakarta version also gains a compliant > implementation: > >>>>> > >>>>> - javax.activation 1.1 vs 1.2 > >>>>> - javax.security.jacc 1.4 vs 1.6 > >>>>> - javax.mail 1.5 vs 1.6 > >>>>> > >>>>> This one is a flaw in my reporting, it's included in Tomcat: > >>>>> > >>>>> - javax.security.auth.message 1.0 vs 1.1 (JASPIC) > >>>>> > >>>>> We should likely use the exact version cxf requires of this: > >>>>> > >>>>> - javax.xml.ws 2.2 vs 2.3 (JAX-WS) > >>>>> > >>>>> These we will likely not be able to change as the corresponding > implementations aren't there: > >>>>> > >>>>> - javax.enterprise.concurrent 1.0 vs 1.1 > >>>>> - javax.resource 1.6 vs 1.7 > >>>>> - javax.transaction 1.2 vs 1.3 (JTA) > >>>>> > >>>>> If we ship TomEE 8.0 with just those three lagging APIs, that would > be pretty good. Shipping a final with 8 lagging libraries, less fantastic. > >>>>> > >>>>> What do people think about the potential upgrades? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> David Blevins > >>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins > >>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >
