ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:19:24 GMT
Alexander, thanks!

I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.

—
Denis

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Created Upsource review for the subject:
> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82
> 
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed.
>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/i
>> gnite/pull/1475 .
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the
>>> following at the moment
>>> 
>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this
>>> distribution
>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License.
>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> ============================================================
>>> ==================
>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec)
>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0
>>> ============================================================
>>> ==================
>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a:
>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. For
>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira
>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache
>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now?
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache.
>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for
>>> compatibility
>>>>> reasons.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so
>>> I'm
>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Val
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already
been
>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 <
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added
to
>>> 2.0?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library
in the
>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache
2.0 several
>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license
and
>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link
is pointing
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> new one though).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need
to move to
>>>>>>> Geronimo?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as
there is no real
>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch
to 1.0
>>> whenever
>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko
<
>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine
for me. Are we
>>>>> going
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache
jar is the same as the
>>>>>>>>> JSR107?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.
>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR
starting next
>>>>> release,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Kind regards,
>> Alexander.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.


Mime
View raw message