See this note on our activation thread. Long story short, our version 1.1 is legitimate and the exact version expected for Java EE 8 on Java 8.
- https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/89f81b0584dffca7d979a4fdedc6fe7b4f3c547848b0159b1702857e@<dev.tomee.apache.org> On JavaMail, my recommendation would be to update asap, but not hold up the TomEE 8.0.0 final release. IMHO, we should try to be vote-ready on Friday. If we can get it done in that time, cool. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Sep 3, 2019, at 8:48 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> > wrote: > > Trying to pull this message up in the list. > > If we want to release Apache TomEE 8.0.0 before CodeOne, we need JavaMail, > Activation and some others. > For the others, I think I managed to get them up for vote and ready. > > For Activation and JavaMail it's also an implementation so there is more > work involved and I am not sure we can get it done by CodeOne. > Of course it's not a good reason, but I still want to revive this topic so > we can decide all together how we want to proceed. > > Do we update/create our specs in Geronimo? > Do we use the eclipse jars? > > thoughts > > > > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:53 AM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 2:05 AM, Alex The Rocker <alex.m3...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Okay; for EDL I see it's compatible with Apache licensing, but >>> strangely, JAXB license does not look like an EDL: >>> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxb-api/blob/2.3.2/LICENSE.md >>> >>> Am I mistaking or this is actually "cheesy" ? >> >> I pulled down the official text here and did a quick reformat to match it >> to the LICENSE.md >> >> - https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php >> >> Sans the copyright statement, both came out identical in a diff, so we >> appear good. >> >> We will want to make sure our NOTICE file does contain the copyright >> statement, so that is a definitely good catch. >> >> >> -David >> >>> Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 10:37, David Blevins <dblev...@tomitribe.com> a >> écrit : >>>> >>>>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:23 AM, Alex The Rocker <alex.m3...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> How about JAXB which is not EPL but EDL 1.0 ? >>>>> (see https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxb-api/tree/2.3.2) >>>> >>>> EDL is an approved license. Here's the complete naughty and nice list >> as it where :) >>>> >>>> - https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html >>>> >>>> The interesting thing about jaxb-api is there is only one >> implementation in the world and it is also EDL and no longer included in >> the JVM. If we typed in the API, 98% of the other JAXB code we ship would >> still be EDL. >>>> >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>>> Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 10:16, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> This is really the better thread to talk about how to handle the gaps >> in our Java EE 8 APIs and support. >>>>>> >>>>>> As noted, there is not license victory to be won. We have had EPL >> and CDDL dependencies since v1.0 in 2011. >>>>>> >>>>>> From a Geronimo perspective, we typed in the APIs and created all >> those spec jars because there were no open source options that weren't the >> JBoss GPL versions. GlassFish didn't exist yet. When GlassFish came >> about, we kept up the practice largely out of habit. We did have an >> unavoidable CDDL via the xml schemas and JAXB RI, so our licensing victory >> wasn't quite there. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is really a resources and timeline issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some of these specs are actually implementations, specifically: >>>>>> >>>>>> - JavaMail 1.6 >>>>>> - JACC 1.6 >>>>>> - Activation 1.2 >>>>>> >>>>>> If we decide we want the Geronimo versions to be upgraded >> (implemented) and this is important for TomEE 8, we should expect that to >> ship sometime 2020. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> David Blevins >>>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins >>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 13, 2019, at 12:10 AM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did a small gap-analysis of where we're still short on Java EE 8 >> APIs from the perspective of our javaee-api jar: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2620 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Specific callouts are these APIs are also implementations, so >> switching to the equivalent Jakarta version also gains a compliant >> implementation: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - javax.activation 1.1 vs 1.2 >>>>>>> - javax.security.jacc 1.4 vs 1.6 >>>>>>> - javax.mail 1.5 vs 1.6 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This one is a flaw in my reporting, it's included in Tomcat: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - javax.security.auth.message 1.0 vs 1.1 (JASPIC) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We should likely use the exact version cxf requires of this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - javax.xml.ws 2.2 vs 2.3 (JAX-WS) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These we will likely not be able to change as the corresponding >> implementations aren't there: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - javax.enterprise.concurrent 1.0 vs 1.1 >>>>>>> - javax.resource 1.6 vs 1.7 >>>>>>> - javax.transaction 1.2 vs 1.3 (JTA) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we ship TomEE 8.0 with just those three lagging APIs, that would >> be pretty good. Shipping a final with 8 lagging libraries, less fantastic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do people think about the potential upgrades? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> David Blevins >>>>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins >>>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>
