ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:17:07 GMT
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.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message