geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Java EE 8 versions of APIs
Date Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:16:14 GMT
See this note on our activation thread.  Long story short, our version 1.1 is legitimate and
the exact version expected for Java EE 8 on Java 8.

 - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/89f81b0584dffca7d979a4fdedc6fe7b4f3c547848b0159b1702857e@<dev.tomee.apache.org>

On JavaMail, my recommendation would be to update asap, but not hold up the TomEE 8.0.0 final
release.

IMHO, we should try to be vote-ready on Friday.  If we can get it done in that time, cool.


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 8:48 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.blevins@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 2:05 AM, Alex The Rocker <alex.m3tal@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 <dblevins@tomitribe.com>
a
>> écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:23 AM, Alex The Rocker <alex.m3tal@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.blevins@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.blevins@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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message