JCache dependency
Locked
 
|
Hello Geronimo community!
I have noticed that you Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using its own JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 license [1]. We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache specification and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do we need to take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under Apache 2.0? Thanks, Dmitriy Setrakyan Apache Ignite, PMC chair |
|
|
Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to:
http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello Geronimo community! > > I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using its own > JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 license > [1]. > > We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache specification > and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do we need > to take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under > Apache 2.0? > > Thanks, > Dmitriy Setrakyan > Apache Ignite, PMC chair > |
|
Hi Dmitriy,
why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella spec project. What's the issue you hit? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>: > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using its own >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 license >> [1]. >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache specification >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do we need to >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under Apache >> 2.0? >> >> Thanks, >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair > > |
|
|
Hi Romain,
The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version 1.0.0 [1], while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. Any chance you can upgrade the version? [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 D. On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Dmitriy, > > why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by > geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella > spec project. What's the issue you hit? > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber > > > 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>: > > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: > > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello Geronimo community! > >> > >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using its own > >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 > license > >> [1]. > >> > >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache > specification > >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do we > need to > >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under > Apache > >> 2.0? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Dmitriy Setrakyan > >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair > > > > > |
|
|
Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary compat
but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If you have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a écrit : > Hi Romain, > > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version 1.0.0 [1], > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. > > Any chance you can upgrade the version? > > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 > > D. > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email] > > wrote: > >> Hi Dmitriy, >> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >> >> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>: >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: >> > >> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> [hidden email]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >> >> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using its >> own >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 >> license >> >> [1]. >> >> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache >> specification >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do we >> need to >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under >> Apache >> >> 2.0? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >> > >> > >> > > |
|
|
Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. Are you
talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK [1]? In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems to be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote: > Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary compat > but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If you > have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 > Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a > écrit : > > > Hi Romain, > > > > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version 1.0.0 [1], > > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. > > > > Any chance you can upgrade the version? > > > > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 > > > > D. > > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [hidden email] > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Dmitriy, > >> > >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by > >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella > >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber > >> > >> > >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>: > >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: > >> > > >> > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> [hidden email]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hello Geronimo community! > >> >> > >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using its > >> own > >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 > >> license > >> >> [1]. > >> >> > >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache > >> specification > >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do we > >> need to > >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under > >> Apache > >> >> 2.0? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan > >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > |
|
|
Dmitriy,
I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, geronimo JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. There may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on the final version but with minor tweaks. For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the JMS 2 spec. https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just alpha2 because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API is sane. John On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. Are you > talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK [1]? In > this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems to be > licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? > > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck > [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email] > > wrote: > >> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary compat >> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If you >> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 >> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a >> écrit : >> >> > Hi Romain, >> > >> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version 1.0.0 >> [1], >> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. >> > >> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 >> > >> > D. >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [hidden email] >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Dmitriy, >> >> >> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by >> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella >> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >> >> >> >> >> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>: >> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: >> >> > >> >> >> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >> [hidden email]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >> >> >> >> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using its >> >> own >> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 >> >> license >> >> >> [1]. >> >> >> >> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache >> >> specification >> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do we >> >> need to >> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under >> >> Apache >> >> >> 2.0? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > > |
|
|
John,
I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the JCache spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any implementation, nor implies that every project importing or depending on the spec must be compliant with the spec. In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different matter, and it should be up to the project community itself to declare the compliance with a certain spec and pass the TCK. Am I wrong? D. On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote: > Dmitriy, > > I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, geronimo > JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. There > may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on the > final version but with minor tweaks. > > For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the JMS 2 spec. > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 > It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just alpha2 because > we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API is sane. > > John > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. Are you >> talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK [1]? In >> this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems to be >> licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? >> >> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck >> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary compat >>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If you >>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 >>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a >>> écrit : >>> >>> > Hi Romain, >>> > >>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version 1.0.0 >>> [1], >>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. >>> > >>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? >>> > >>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 >>> > >>> > D. >>> > >>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [hidden email] >>> > > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Dmitriy, >>> >> >>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by >>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella >>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >>> >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>: >>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: >>> >> > >>> >> >>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>> >> [hidden email]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using >>> its >>> >> own >>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 >>> >> license >>> >> >> [1]. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache >>> >> specification >>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do >>> we >>> >> need to >>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under >>> >> Apache >>> >> >> 2.0? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> |
|
|
Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > John, > > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the JCache spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any implementation, nor implies that every project importing or depending on the spec must be compliant with the spec. > > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different matter, and it should be up to the project community itself to declare the compliance with a certain spec and pass the TCK. > > Am I wrong? > Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. > D. > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Dmitriy, >> >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, geronimo JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. There may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on the final version but with minor tweaks. >> >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the JMS 2 spec. https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just alpha2 because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API is sane. >> >> John >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. Are you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK [1]? In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems to be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < [hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary compat >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If you >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a écrit : >>>> >>>> > Hi Romain, >>>> > >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version 1.0.0 [1], >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. >>>> > >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? >>>> > >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 >>>> > >>>> > D. >>>> > >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < [hidden email] >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy, >>>> >> >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >>>> >> >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email] >: >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>> >> [hidden email]> >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using its >>>> >> own >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache 2.0 >>>> >> license >>>> >> >> [1]. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache >>>> >> specification >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps do we >>>> >> need to >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed under >>>> >> Apache >>>> >> >> 2.0? >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Thanks, >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>> >>> > |
|
|
We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from Geronimo, but
I am still very confused. I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when creating a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked against an implementation, not a spec. Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process? D. On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote: > Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a > écrit : > > > > John, > > > > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the JCache > spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any > implementation, nor implies that every project importing or depending on > the spec must be compliant with the spec. > > > > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different matter, and > it should be up to the project community itself to declare the compliance > with a certain spec and pass the TCK. > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. > > > D. > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> > >> Dmitriy, > >> > >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, geronimo > JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. There > may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on the > final version but with minor tweaks. > >> > >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the JMS 2 > spec. https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 > >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just alpha2 > because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API is > sane. > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. Are > you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK [1]? > In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems to > be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? > >>> > >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck > >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > >>> > >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary > compat > >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If > you > >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 > >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a > écrit : > >>>> > >>>> > Hi Romain, > >>>> > > >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version 1.0.0 > [1], > >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. > >>>> > > >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? > >>>> > > >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 > >>>> > > >>>> > D. > >>>> > > >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [hidden email] > >>>> > > wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy, > >>>> >> > >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by > >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella > >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email] > >: > >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>>> >> [hidden email]> > >>>> >> > wrote: > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is using > its > >>>> >> own > >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache > 2.0 > >>>> >> license > >>>> >> >> [1]. > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache > >>>> >> specification > >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps > do we > >>>> >> need to > >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed > under > >>>> >> Apache > >>>> >> >> 2.0? > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> Thanks, > >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan > >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > > |
|
|
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote: > We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from Geronimo, > but I am still very confused. > > I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when creating > a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked against an > implementation, not a spec. > > I'm confused by this statement as well. TCK is only applied to impl so not sure why you might think that. What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release indicates that no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant. One of the JSR requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR. If someone can do that, then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release. > Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process? > > D. > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email] > > wrote: > >> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a >> écrit : >> > >> > John, >> > >> > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the JCache >> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any >> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or depending on >> the spec must be compliant with the spec. >> > >> > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different matter, and >> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the compliance >> with a certain spec and pass the TCK. >> > >> > Am I wrong? >> > >> >> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. >> >> > D. >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dmitriy, >> >> >> >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, geronimo >> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. There >> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on the >> final version but with minor tweaks. >> >> >> >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the JMS 2 >> spec. https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 >> >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just alpha2 >> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API is >> sane. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> [hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. Are >> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK [1]? >> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems to >> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? >> >>> >> >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck >> >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary >> compat >> >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If >> you >> >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 >> >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a >> écrit : >> >>>> >> >>>> > Hi Romain, >> >>>> > >> >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version >> 1.0.0 >> [1], >> >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 >> >>>> > >> >>>> > D. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [hidden email] >> >>>> > > wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy, >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by >> >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as umbrella >> >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> [hidden email] >> >: >> >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >>>> >> [hidden email]> >> >>>> >> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is >> using >> its >> >>>> >> own >> >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under Apache >> 2.0 >> >>>> >> license >> >>>> >> >> [1]. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache >> >>>> >> specification >> >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps >> do we >> >>>> >> need to >> >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed >> under >> >>>> >> Apache >> >>>> >> >> 2.0? >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Thanks, >> >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > > |
|
|
ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still not ;)):
TCK are not only @Test but also some bianary validations (aka sigtest or signature tests) the spec jars need to pass. It basically checks you respect the spec signature for the supported java version of the spec. Not having TCK and not being related to a public spec (like BVal or JBatch) makes this sigtest validation missing @asf side so until we get this or somebody checks generated bytecode of spec jars (and not sources) then we'll not use final versions to not show a spec compliance we maybe don't have. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from Geronimo, >> but I am still very confused. >> >> I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when creating >> a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked against an >> implementation, not a spec. >> > > I'm confused by this statement as well. TCK is only applied to impl so not > sure why you might think that. > > What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release indicates that > no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant. One of the JSR > requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR. If someone can do that, > then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release. > >> >> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process? >> >> D. >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a >>> écrit : >>> > >>> > John, >>> > >>> > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the >>> > JCache >>> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any >>> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or depending on >>> the spec must be compliant with the spec. >>> > >>> > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different matter, >>> > and >>> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the compliance >>> with a certain spec and pass the TCK. >>> > >>> > Am I wrong? >>> > >>> >>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. >>> >>> > D. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dmitriy, >>> >> >>> >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, >>> >> geronimo >>> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. >>> There >>> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on the >>> final version but with minor tweaks. >>> >> >>> >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the JMS 2 >>> spec. https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 >>> >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just alpha2 >>> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API is >>> sane. >>> >> >>> >> John >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan >>> >> <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. Are >>> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK [1]? >>> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems to >>> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary >>> compat >>> >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If >>> you >>> >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 >>> >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > Hi Romain, >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version >>> >>>> > 1.0.0 >>> [1], >>> >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > D. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [hidden email] >>> >>>> > > wrote: >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy, >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned by >>> >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as >>> >>>> >> umbrella >>> >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> >>>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan >>> >>>> >> <[hidden email] >>> >: >>> >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring to: >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> >>> >>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>> >>>> >> [hidden email]> >>> >>>> >> > wrote: >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is >>> >>>> >> >> using >>> its >>> >>>> >> own >>> >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under >>> >>>> >> >> Apache >>> 2.0 >>> >>>> >> license >>> >>>> >> >> [1]. >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache >>> >>>> >> specification >>> >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps >>> do we >>> >>>> >> need to >>> >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed >>> under >>> >>>> >> Apache >>> >>>> >> >> 2.0? >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Thanks, >>> >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >>> >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> >> > |
|
|
I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with flying
colors :) We have it integrated into our build routine and verify it using our CI tests. In addition, it was verified by one of the JCache spec leads, Greg Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec. Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR? D. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote: > ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still > not ;)): > > TCK are not only @Test but also some bianary validations (aka sigtest > or signature tests) the spec jars need to pass. It basically checks > you respect the spec signature for the supported java version of the > spec. Not having TCK and not being related to a public spec (like BVal > or JBatch) makes this sigtest validation missing @asf side so until we > get this or somebody checks generated bytecode of spec jars (and not > sources) then we'll not use final versions to not show a spec > compliance we maybe don't have. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber > > > 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email] > > > > wrote: > >> > >> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from Geronimo, > >> but I am still very confused. > >> > >> I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when > creating > >> a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked against > an > >> implementation, not a spec. > >> > > > > I'm confused by this statement as well. TCK is only applied to impl so > not > > sure why you might think that. > > > > What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release indicates > that > > no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant. One of the JSR > > requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR. If someone can do > that, > > then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release. > > > >> > >> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process? > >> > >> D. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a > >>> écrit : > >>> > > >>> > John, > >>> > > >>> > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the > >>> > JCache > >>> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any > >>> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or depending > on > >>> the spec must be compliant with the spec. > >>> > > >>> > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different matter, > >>> > and > >>> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the > compliance > >>> with a certain spec and pass the TCK. > >>> > > >>> > Am I wrong? > >>> > > >>> > >>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. > >>> > >>> > D. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament < > [hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Dmitriy, > >>> >> > >>> >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, > >>> >> geronimo > >>> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. > >>> There > >>> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on the > >>> final version but with minor tweaks. > >>> >> > >>> >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the JMS 2 > >>> spec. > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 > >>> >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just alpha2 > >>> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API is > >>> sane. > >>> >> > >>> >> John > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan > >>> >> <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. > Are > >>> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK > [1]? > >>> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems > to > >>> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck > >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary > >>> compat > >>> >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. > If > >>> you > >>> >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on > 1.0 > >>> >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> > a > >>> écrit : > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > Hi Romain, > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version > >>> >>>> > 1.0.0 > >>> [1], > >>> >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > D. > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >>> [hidden email] > >>> >>>> > > wrote: > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy, > >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are owned > by > >>> >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as > >>> >>>> >> umbrella > >>> >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? > >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> >>>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber > >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan > >>> >>>> >> <[hidden email] > >>> >: > >>> >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring > to: > >>> >>>> >> > > >>> >>>> >> > >>> > >>> > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > >>> >>>> >> > > >>> >>>> >> > > >>> >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>> >>>> >> [hidden email]> > >>> >>>> >> > wrote: > >>> >>>> >> >> > >>> >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! > >>> >>>> >> >> > >>> >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is > >>> >>>> >> >> using > >>> its > >>> >>>> >> own > >>> >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under > >>> >>>> >> >> Apache > >>> 2.0 > >>> >>>> >> license > >>> >>>> >> >> [1]. > >>> >>>> >> >> > >>> >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented JCache > >>> >>>> >> specification > >>> >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what > steps > >>> do we > >>> >>>> >> need to > >>> >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version > licensed > >>> under > >>> >>>> >> Apache > >>> >>>> >> >> 2.0? > >>> >>>> >> >> > >>> >>>> >> >> Thanks, > >>> >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan > >>> >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair > >>> >>>> >> > > >>> >>>> >> > > >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > > >> > >> > > > |
|
|
Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with flying colors :) > True! Totally forgot tck were open! Didn't check sigtest, is it there too? If so nothing blocking a 1.0. > We have it integrated into our build routine and verify it using our CI tests. In addition, it was verified by one of the JCache spec leads, Greg Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec. > > Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR? > > D. > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still not ;)): >> >> TCK are not only @Test but also some bianary validations (aka sigtest >> or signature tests) the spec jars need to pass. It basically checks >> you respect the spec signature for the supported java version of the >> spec. Not having TCK and not being related to a public spec (like BVal >> or JBatch) makes this sigtest validation missing @asf side so until we >> get this or somebody checks generated bytecode of spec jars (and not >> sources) then we'll not use final versions to not show a spec >> compliance we maybe don't have. >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >> >> >> 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from Geronimo, >> >> but I am still very confused. >> >> >> >> I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when creating >> >> a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked against an >> >> implementation, not a spec. >> >> >> > >> > I'm confused by this statement as well. TCK is only applied to impl so not >> > sure why you might think that. >> > >> > What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release indicates that >> > no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant. One of the JSR >> > requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR. If someone can do that, >> > then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release. >> > >> >> >> >> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process? >> >> >> >> D. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a >> >>> écrit : >> >>> > >> >>> > John, >> >>> > >> >>> > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the >> >>> > JCache >> >>> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any >> >>> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or >> >>> the spec must be compliant with the spec. >> >>> > >> >>> > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different matter, >> >>> > and >> >>> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the compliance >> >>> with a certain spec and pass the TCK. >> >>> > >> >>> > Am I wrong? >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. >> >>> >> >>> > D. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament < >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Dmitriy, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, >> >>> >> geronimo >> >>> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. >> >>> There >> >>> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on the >> >>> final version but with minor tweaks. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the JMS 2 >> >>> spec. https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 >> >>> >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just alpha2 >> >>> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API is >> >>> sane. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> John >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >>> >> <[hidden email]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. >> >>> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK [1]? >> >>> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK seems to >> >>> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck >> >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary >> >>> compat >> >>> >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything else. If >> >>> you >> >>> >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on 1.0 >> >>> >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < [hidden email]> a >> >>> écrit : >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> > Hi Romain, >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on version >> >>> >>>> > 1.0.0 >> >>> [1], >> >>> >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > D. >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >>> [hidden email] >> >>> >>>> > > wrote: >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy, >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are >> >>> >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as >> >>> >>>> >> umbrella >> >>> >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>> >>>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >>> >>>> >> <[hidden email] >> >>> >: >> >>> >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >>> >>>> >> [hidden email]> >> >>> >>>> >> > wrote: >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and is >> >>> >>>> >> >> using >> >>> its >> >>> >>>> >> own >> >>> >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under >> >>> >>>> >> >> Apache >> >>> 2.0 >> >>> >>>> >> license >> >>> >>>> >> >> [1]. >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented >> >>> >>>> >> specification >> >>> >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what steps >> >>> do we >> >>> >>>> >> need to >> >>> >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version licensed >> >>> under >> >>> >>>> >> Apache >> >>> >>>> >> >> 2.0? >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >>> >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > |
|
|
TCK does contain the sigtest:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/tree/master/sigtest Looking forward to getting the 1.0 version :) D. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote: > Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a > écrit : > > > > I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with > flying colors :) > > > > True! Totally forgot tck were open! Didn't check sigtest, is it there too? > If so nothing blocking a 1.0. > > > We have it integrated into our build routine and verify it using our CI > tests. In addition, it was verified by one of the JCache spec leads, Greg > Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec. > > > > Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR? > > > > D. > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [hidden email]> > wrote: > >> > >> ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still > not ;)): > >> > >> TCK are not only @Test but also some bianary validations (aka sigtest > >> or signature tests) the spec jars need to pass. It basically checks > >> you respect the spec signature for the supported java version of the > >> spec. Not having TCK and not being related to a public spec (like BVal > >> or JBatch) makes this sigtest validation missing @asf side so until we > >> get this or somebody checks generated bytecode of spec jars (and not > >> sources) then we'll not use final versions to not show a spec > >> compliance we maybe don't have. > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber > >> > >> > >> 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from > Geronimo, > >> >> but I am still very confused. > >> >> > >> >> I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when > creating > >> >> a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked > against an > >> >> implementation, not a spec. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I'm confused by this statement as well. TCK is only applied to impl > so not > >> > sure why you might think that. > >> > > >> > What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release > indicates that > >> > no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant. One of the JSR > >> > requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR. If someone can do > that, > >> > then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process? > >> >> > >> >> D. > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> > a > >> >>> écrit : > >> >>> > > >> >>> > John, > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the > >> >>> > JCache > >> >>> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any > >> >>> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or > depending on > >> >>> the spec must be compliant with the spec. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different > matter, > >> >>> > and > >> >>> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the > compliance > >> >>> with a certain spec and pass the TCK. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Am I wrong? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. > >> >>> > >> >>> > D. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament < > [hidden email]> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Dmitriy, > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, > >> >>> >> geronimo > >> >>> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. > >> >>> There > >> >>> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on > the > >> >>> final version but with minor tweaks. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the > JMS 2 > >> >>> spec. > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 > >> >>> >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just > alpha2 > >> >>> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the API > is > >> >>> sane. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> John > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan > >> >>> >> <[hidden email]> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to TCK. > Are > >> >>> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the TCK > [1]? > >> >>> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK > seems to > >> >>> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck > >> >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate > binary > >> >>> compat > >> >>> >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything > else. If > >> >>> you > >> >>> >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move on > 1.0 > >> >>> >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > [hidden email]> a > >> >>> écrit : > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > Hi Romain, > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on > version > >> >>> >>>> > 1.0.0 > >> >>> [1], > >> >>> >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> > D. > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >>> [hidden email] > >> >>> >>>> > > wrote: > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy, > >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are > owned by > >> >>> >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as > >> >>> >>>> >> umbrella > >> >>> >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? > >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >>> >>>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber > >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan > >> >>> >>>> >> <[hidden email] > >> >>> >: > >> >>> >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was referring > to: > >> >>> >>>> >> > > >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > >> >>> >>>> >> > > >> >>> >>>> >> > > >> >>> >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> >>> >>>> >> [hidden email]> > >> >>> >>>> >> > wrote: > >> >>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! > >> >>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and > is > >> >>> >>>> >> >> using > >> >>> its > >> >>> >>>> >> own > >> >>> >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under > >> >>> >>>> >> >> Apache > >> >>> 2.0 > >> >>> >>>> >> license > >> >>> >>>> >> >> [1]. > >> >>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented > JCache > >> >>> >>>> >> specification > >> >>> >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what > steps > >> >>> do we > >> >>> >>>> >> need to > >> >>> >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version > licensed > >> >>> under > >> >>> >>>> >> Apache > >> >>> >>>> >> >> 2.0? > >> >>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>> >> >> Thanks, > >> >>> >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan > >> >>> >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair > >> >>> >>>> >> > > >> >>> >>>> >> > > >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > > > |
|
|
Just checked and our spec jar passes sigtest. Not sure for this week
but think we can run a vote next one if nobody objects - don't hesitate to ping if nothing happens ;). Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber 2016-03-30 9:20 GMT+02:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>: > TCK does contain the sigtest: > https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/tree/master/sigtest > > Looking forward to getting the 1.0 version :) > > D. > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> a écrit >> : >> > >> > I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with >> flying colors :) >> > >> >> True! Totally forgot tck were open! Didn't check sigtest, is it there too? >> If so nothing blocking a 1.0. >> >> > We have it integrated into our build routine and verify it using our CI >> tests. In addition, it was verified by one of the JCache spec leads, Greg >> Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec. >> > >> > Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR? >> > >> > D. >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still >> not ;)): >> >> >> >> TCK are not only @Test but also some bianary validations (aka sigtest >> >> or signature tests) the spec jars need to pass. It basically checks >> >> you respect the spec signature for the supported java version of the >> >> spec. Not having TCK and not being related to a public spec (like BVal >> >> or JBatch) makes this sigtest validation missing @asf side so until we >> >> get this or somebody checks generated bytecode of spec jars (and not >> >> sources) then we'll not use final versions to not show a spec >> >> compliance we maybe don't have. >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >> >> >> >> >> >> 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> [hidden email]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from >> Geronimo, >> >> >> but I am still very confused. >> >> >> >> >> >> I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when >> creating >> >> >> a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked >> against an >> >> >> implementation, not a spec. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I'm confused by this statement as well. TCK is only applied to impl >> so not >> >> > sure why you might think that. >> >> > >> >> > What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release >> indicates that >> >> > no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant. One of the JSR >> >> > requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR. If someone can do >> that, >> >> > then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process? >> >> >> >> >> >> D. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[hidden email]> >> >> >>> a >> >> >>> écrit : >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > John, >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the >> >> >>> > JCache >> >> >>> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any >> >> >>> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or >> depending on >> >> >>> the spec must be compliant with the spec. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different >> matter, >> >> >>> > and >> >> >>> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the >> compliance >> >> >>> with a certain spec and pass the TCK. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Am I wrong? >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > D. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament < >> [hidden email]> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Dmitriy, >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs. Generally, >> >> >>> >> geronimo >> >> >>> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement. >> >> >>> There >> >> >>> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on >> the >> >> >>> final version but with minor tweaks. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the >> JMS 2 >> >> >>> spec. >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131 >> >> >>> >> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just >> >> >>> >> alpha2 >> >> >>> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the >> >> >>> API >> is >> >> >>> sane. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> John >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >> >>> >> <[hidden email]> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to >> >> >>> >>> TCK. >> Are >> >> >>> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the >> >> >>> TCK >> [1]? >> >> >>> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK >> seems to >> >> >>> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain? >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck >> >> >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate >> binary >> >> >>> compat >> >> >>> >>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything >> else. If >> >> >>> you >> >> >>> >>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move >> >> >>> >>>> on >> 1.0 >> >> >>> >>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < >> [hidden email]> a >> >> >>> écrit : >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> > Hi Romain, >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on >> >> >>> >>>> > version >> >> >>> >>>> > 1.0.0 >> >> >>> [1], >> >> >>> >>>> > while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1. >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > Any chance you can upgrade the version? >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0 >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > D. >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> >>> [hidden email] >> >> >>> >>>> > > wrote: >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> >> Hi Dmitriy, >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are >> owned by >> >> >>> >>>> >> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as >> >> >>> >>>> >> umbrella >> >> >>> >>>> >> spec project. What's the issue you hit? >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >>> >>>> >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >> >>> >>>> >> <[hidden email] >> >> >>> >: >> >> >>> >>>> >> > Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was >> >> >>> >>>> >> > referring >> to: >> >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >> >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >> >>> >>>> >> [hidden email]> >> >> >>> >>>> >> > wrote: >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Hello Geronimo community! >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> is >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> using >> >> >>> its >> >> >>> >>>> >> own >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Apache >> >> >>> 2.0 >> >> >>> >>>> >> license >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> [1]. >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented >> JCache >> >> >>> >>>> >> specification >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what >> steps >> >> >>> do we >> >> >>> >>>> >> need to >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version >> licensed >> >> >>> under >> >> >>> >>>> >> Apache >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> 2.0? >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Dmitriy Setrakyan >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> Apache Ignite, PMC chair >> >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > > |
«
Return to Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |