geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JCache dependency
Date Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:33:55 GMT
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
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 <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <dsetrakyan@apache.org> 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 <johndament@apache.org>
>> 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 <
>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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" <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> >>>> > > 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 <
>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> >:
>> >>>> >> > 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
<
>> >>>> >> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>>> >> > 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
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message