Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Or the osgi point yes (just clarifying cause we hijacked this thread with > this point). I would make a lot of sense and hopefully avoid these useless > global unsafe static setters in user land. Hopes are strong ;). > I completely

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Or the osgi point yes (just clarifying cause we hijacked this thread with this point). I would make a lot of sense and hopefully avoid these useless global unsafe static setters in user land. Hopes are strong ;). Le mer. 6 juin 2018 19:41, Raymond Auge a écrit : > Also, there is a conversation

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Also, there is a conversation around an Micro Profile technology review board. That feels like the level at which we might tackle this issue so that it's considered across MP projects. - Ray On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Raymond Auge wrote: > I think it would be great if many of us could

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

I think it would be great if many of us could upvote the issue created by Romain: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/95 I have put in my 2 cents worth on it. - Ray On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Ok guys, seems we have a consensus to drop the

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Ok guys, seems we have a consensus to drop the G api flavors, any idea where to hit MP to make them handle it as a whole and not per spec? Then I guess we can do our housekeeping and move forward on more important topics :). Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau |

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Sounds great. Thanks Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:58, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > I don't have them handy but maybe we should get in touch with aries guys. > Seems current OSGi@MP is driven by liberty profile and they don't seem to > be aware of recent OSGi update leading to API pollution which

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

I don't have them handy but maybe we should get in touch with aries guys. Seems current OSGi@MP is driven by liberty profile and they don't seem to be aware of recent OSGi update leading to API pollution which is pretty bad for end users. Will try to ping a few OSGi@asf guys I know to get help on

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Sounds a good plan. Can you send a PR on the eclipse projects? I can review them there and most likely get them merged or help pushing Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:36, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > I see, so what about this one: for now we stay like we are @G and once > eclipse has released

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

I see, so what about this one: for now we stay like we are @G and once eclipse has released spifly/provider header/contracts meta we drop them since they prooved we dont need it anymore. Does it sound like a plan? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

So not needed if we use apache parent pby - this was my point Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

It contains a few standard plugin settings, but that's really it. LieGrue, strub > Am 05.06.2018 um 06:52 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > I know that part but never understood why not using apache parent > > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 22:06, Mark Struberg a écrit : > yes, they are the parents for

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

I know that part but never understood why not using apache parent Le lun. 4 juin 2018 22:06, Mark Struberg a écrit : > yes, they are the parents for the various g projects. > > flava5 is for java5 projects, flava6 for java6, > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 04.06.2018 um 18:15 schrieb Romain

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

yes, they are the parents for the various g projects. flava5 is for java5 projects, flava6 for java6, LieGrue, strub > Am 04.06.2018 um 18:15 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > Don't recall but do we need flava anymore? > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Don't recall but do we need flava anymore? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn |

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Just to get this down to paper somehow. The following is a list of specs I'd going to release: Sendinggeronimo-activation_1.1_spec/pom.xml Sendinggeronimo-annotation_1.2_spec/pom.xml Sendinggeronimo-annotation_1.3_spec/pom.xml Sending

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

I'm with Romain on this one. There is a ticket open for various MP specs. We should evaluate this and then push for it to be fixed. LieGrue, strub > Am 04.06.2018 um 15:09 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 13:45, John D. Ament a écrit : > They support OSGi due to

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Btw, I DO have karma to do releases in microprofile ;) LieGrue, strub > Am 04.06.2018 um 09:57 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > Well b doesn't solve 3, any way we get karma to do the releases? This would > solve that neatly. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 13:45, John D. Ament a écrit : > They support OSGi due to liberty's requirements. How they do it is up to > them. Can you please elaborate on what is wrong with the current OSGi > headers? > Nop, liberty does it all wrong. They force setGlobalProvider in the API and this

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

They support OSGi due to liberty's requirements. How they do it is up to them. Can you please elaborate on what is wrong with the current OSGi headers? And the issue with Java 9 is that you can end up with multiple copies of the packages. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, 7:42 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 13:36, John D. Ament a écrit : > We should be fixing the MP spec JARs rather than implementing our set of > JARs. It creates confusion and will lead to inability to run on Java 9. > Last point is wrong since we'll put the same automatic module name. I'm fine with the

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

We should be fixing the MP spec JARs rather than implementing our set of JARs. It creates confusion and will lead to inability to run on Java 9. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, 3:57 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Well b doesn't solve 3, any way we get karma to do the releases? This > would solve that

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Well b doesn't solve 3, any way we get karma to do the releases? This would solve that neatly. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

All fair points, but a.) I don't want to host org.eclipse sources at Apache b.) We can just ship a PR to add those features over there c.) point 4 should not be the case. So I'd vote -1 LieGrue, strub > Am 04.06.2018 um 09:09 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > Hi guys, > > we have 4 MP

[DISCUSS] Do we want to host MP-api versions or not

Hi guys, we have 4 MP implementations I think (failsafe, config, jwt-auth and opentracing) and 2 of them reused eclipse api jar and 2 uses a geronimo flavor. I'd like us to discuss which flavor we want to align all of them. The fact to reuse the API reduces the code we hosts which is not bad