so for instance activation and javamail would stay in Geronimo Specs and let's say @Inject would be Eclipse? -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:11 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > No I guess it was right, "that are" ;) = fork @G only when we need to > change some impl/default provider. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > Le mer. 4 sept. 2019 à 11:07, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > [email protected]> > a écrit : > > > > This is my current thinking as well; maintain apis that are impls, use > > the EPL version otherwise. > > I believe you meant "that are not impls ..." > > > > I'll make the changes on the javaee-api jar > > > > -- > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and > there > >> is no impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it > sounds > >> natural > >> > >> This is my current thinking as well; maintain apis that are impls, use > >> the EPL version otherwise. > >> > >> We do have a handful of EPL dependencies, such as ECJ which Tomcat > itself > >> uses. Also as more projects like CXF switch over using the Jakarta > >> versions, our excludes just get harder to manage. > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:18, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > >> [email protected]> a écrit : > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > I was digging into some other specifications and see what would pass > >> Jakarta TCK and realized that geronimo-security_1.0_spec content > actually > >> mixes 2 specifications. > >> > > >> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/security-api > >> > > >> > and > >> > > >> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaspic > >> > > >> > I thought the initial intent was to create a specific artifact per > >> specification. > >> > Mixing them is a bit annoying from a certification perspective. > >> > It's also not clean because in Tomcat for instance, there is already > >> jaspic API so it becomes a duplicate. > >> > > >> > Would it be possible to split them up in 2 artifacts? > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Jean-Louis Monteiro > >> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >> > http://www.tomitribe.com > >> > >> >
