ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JCache dependency
Date Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:30:05 GMT
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 ;).

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber


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
>
> 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
View raw message