geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear
Date Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:16:37 GMT
so for instance activation and javamail would stay in Geronimo Specs and
let's say @Inject would be Eclipse?
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com


On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:11 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> No I guess it was right, "that are" ;) = fork @G only when we need to
> change some impl/default provider.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le mer. 4 sept. 2019 à 11:07, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> a écrit :
>
> > > This is my current thinking as well; maintain apis that are impls, use
> > the EPL version otherwise.
> > I believe you meant "that are not impls ..."
> >
> > I'll make the changes on the javaee-api jar
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and
> there
> >> is no impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it
> sounds
> >> natural
> >>
> >> This is my current thinking as well; maintain apis that are impls, use
> >> the EPL version otherwise.
> >>
> >> We do have a handful of EPL dependencies, such as ECJ which Tomcat
> itself
> >> uses.  Also as more projects like CXF switch over using the Jakarta
> >> versions, our excludes just get harder to manage.
> >>
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >> > Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:18, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> >> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> a écrit :
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > I was digging into some other specifications and see what would pass
> >> Jakarta TCK and realized that geronimo-security_1.0_spec content
> actually
> >> mixes 2 specifications.
> >> >
> >> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/security-api
> >> >
> >> > and
> >> >
> >> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaspic
> >> >
> >> > I thought the initial intent was to create a specific artifact per
> >> specification.
> >> > Mixing them is a bit annoying from a certification perspective.
> >> > It's also not clean because in Tomcat for instance, there is already
> >> jaspic API so it becomes a duplicate.
> >> >
> >> > Would it be possible to split them up in 2 artifacts?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>
> >>
>

Mime
View raw message