ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JCache dependency
Date Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:20:30 GMT
TCK does contain the sigtest:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/tree/master/sigtest

Looking forward to getting the 1.0 version :)

D.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <dsetrakyan@apache.org> a
> écrit :
> >
> > I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with
> flying colors :)
> >
>
> True! Totally forgot tck were open! Didn't check sigtest, is it there too?
> If so nothing blocking a 1.0.
>
> > 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, Greg
> Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec.
> >
> > Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still
> not ;)):
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
> >>
> >>
> >> 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message