geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear
Date Wed, 04 Sep 2019 21:51:45 GMT
> On Sep 4, 2019, at 2:10 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <> wrote:
> No I guess it was right, "that are" ;) = fork @G only when we need to
> change some impl/default provider.

Right.  A few things in my mind at least:

 - Industry health: we (Apache) are the only other implementations of Activation, JavaMail,
JACC and similar "impl" specs.  If we give up on the impls we have, the industry collapses
down to one impl and then what is the point of a spec?

 - Competitiveness: we have seen performance issues reported against our impls.  I distinctly
remember one for JACC several years ago.  Where there are issues, there are also potential
advantages.  If we can handle it, let's keep our impls and be competitive.

Where there is no actual impl I don't see any gain for the effort even if small.

 - Unavoidable EPL dependence: We're not likely to write a new Java compiler any time soon,
so we're stuck with the EPL forever.

 - Likelyhood of increased EPL dependence: Given it is the default choice in Jakarta, more
things will be created under it we may need.

 - Decreasing helping hands: Projects at Apache are switching over to the EPL libraries, so
we will have fewer people willing to type in APIs for already-thin legal reasons.


View raw message