Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: JCache dependency
Message-Id: <54756CB1-EF2D-4712-99BF-A1DCAD58A914@yahoo.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 23:14:43 +0200
References: 
 <CA+0=VoUe8_=w=s6LhBdtb_w4xFXUWWQJ0dx4ktjixmMLA2BxRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoXKHALfQJ6KNh8+90y4vqVyxO4gCDCy06A3f3A7p7OE5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLE=7MDS2+2xLURAdPGj6-2CShvLF5ouucJqE5Jgrw8Sj3qrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoVHARqzpKT7Ruqewqpmg0bh5dVeEUiwKEk60WV1wF_h4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLE=7ME26BgHw7B-pVRZ0r=Hrf1ByTQ37CSsU7x2-MzGcgN8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoWvCPS82-ikuce78LtMU45hJeKSz0qNrovS3BX6Bm88PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOqetn_=GUGCf5vFBoUpBEk-hR2YXue-MiBBNBdr+O+FkQnn1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoXA_L2bJXg5TsKbmpVbZOfeSDom3uFqUBVfa_74z7U7uA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLE=7PXJ2GY1CEUAoGhrs4Cf9QOuP+4upsX1++_jsk6W-ZzJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoUhrwG_+2fyTjFXT14rZSK2Z+vYaFgR3q159sThzAy1+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOqetn_1uEjZef9koDOo_K5dJhBis3Z9GdOnqTQdkn-C37PHcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLE=7MUS14mLitqDgUtxkmApOMj=cj8HrVFThszeoNxT-fqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoW-Yq6bM4WMYmO2vbLd3=CGDE_D7N4ZnrCZ13J1uD4f2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLE=7N68OYLYzSGk1oXECRz2a-MeN3RCE_yK3izDTJeEap04w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoUBfre8pTY4ry
 cRu2yaCSc3Sc+dMmGSMd_u-zEX6eO6jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLE=7M2t+2_vFAmKazULNJS0u7fPivviBoXM429rA8PECsOsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACLE=7M2t+2_vFAmKazULNJS0u7fPivviBoXM429rA8PECsOsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

+1

Lg,
Strub

> Am 30.03.2016 um 09:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>:=

>=20
> 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 ;).
>=20
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>=20
>=20
> 2016-03-30 9:20 GMT+02:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>> TCK does contain the sigtest:
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/tree/master/sigtest
>>=20
>> Looking forward to getting the 1.0 version :)
>>=20
>> D.
>>=20
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.c=
om>
>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <dsetrakyan@apache.org> a =C3=
=A9crit
>>> :
>>>>=20
>>>> I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with
>>> flying colors :)
>>>=20
>>> True! Totally forgot tck were open! Didn't check sigtest, is it there to=
o?
>>> If so nothing blocking a 1.0.
>>>=20
>>>> 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, Gre=
g
>>> Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec.
>>>>=20
>>>> Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR?
>>>>=20
>>>> D.
>>>>=20
>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if stil=
l
>>> not ;)):
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from
>>> Geronimo,
>>>>>>> but I am still very confused.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I'm confused by this statement as well.  TCK is only applied to impl
>>> so not
>>>>>> sure why you might think that.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process?
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> =C3=A9crit :
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Am I wrong?
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <
>>> johndament@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>>>>>>> <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> =C3=A9crit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any chance you can upgrade the version?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring
>>> to:
>>>=20
>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jca=
che_1.0_spec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Geronimo community!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Ignite, PMC chair
>>=20
>>=20