+1 because it allows us to more forward quickly. Over the mid- and long-term we will need a separate branch/project I fear. There are already slight differences in e.g. EJB, and a few other specs. But for now this is sufficient enough for people to start playing with. Just keep in mind that we will finally change artifact coordinates!
LieGrue, strub > Am 28.04.2020 um 19:28 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > > Le mar. 28 avr. 2020 à 18:25, Mark Struberg <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > As explained in the other thread: > > What is the difference between the various specs and their previous versions? > Afaict the only difference is jakartaEE, and we WILL NOT MANAGE to do all > via simple replacement. This is an absolute dead end. > > Mark, you keep saying that but each time I ask for a proof of that you never > answer. > Most of the spec are 1-1 (it was the deal of jakartaee8 and some spec had > been forbidden to replace/remove anything). > So please list the diff to let us fix that point if accurate. > > There have been plenty of smallish methods removed in e.g. EJB and servlet. > But also in other specs. So we WILL need to go full scale. And I also expect > more changes to come for JakartaEE9. > > > Ok, think it is your method removal ;). > It is not that accurate for this vote, both jars are not in the scope of this > vote. > > I agree on EE9 point and here we will just create the jar from scratch as > usual, with the right package directly, no ambiguity or discussion IMHO. > > > EE8 is FINISHED. There is NO change! > > Does not mean we don't need to release the jar, please just have a look to > the versions of this thread (which is <1/6 of all specs), spec were finished > when we did 1.0 but we are at 1.4 for some jars so not a point for me. > > > All which happens is done in JakartaEE. And we have all the work done since a > year? > I could do a release of those jars today. > > If you can do all jakarta jars I'm happy to cancel this vote as mentionned > already, my goal was just to get jakarta artifacts for free (and this is what > this vote does) to enable the CDI-SE/JSON-B case which starts to get pressure > to be useable in jakarta namespace more than others. > > Also your list of specs is not final. There is quite a few missing. > > Not sure what you mean, I released the ones I announce for CDI SE + JSON-B > stacks. > > > So why not release from here? > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/jakarta/ > <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/jakarta/> > > Not sure what would be the point to create another branch, we can keep specs/ > still it is specs, no? > > However, I'm -1 to change the artifact id to contain jakarta. Worse case we > could do geronimo-<specname>-api to try to simplify the naming, avoid a > 2-versions based convention and be less rude to end user + use a jpms > friendly default name (even if we put an automatic name it avoids issues in > some envs/ide). > > > Actually I'd move this to > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/jakarta-specs/trunk > <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/jakarta-specs/trunk> > > If we would move anything I would try to use gitbox but can wait after the > first release which is, IMHO, the most urgent. > > > and then do the release. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > >> Am 28.04.2020 um 07:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades. >> >> Tags: >> - >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec-1.2/ >> >> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec-1.2/> >> (rev 1877103) >> - >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.3_spec-1.3/ >> >> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.3_spec-1.3/> >> (rev 1877106) >> - >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-atinject_1.0_spec-1.2/ >> >> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-atinject_1.0_spec-1.2/> >> (rev 1877109) >> - >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-interceptor_1.2_spec-1.2/ >> >> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-interceptor_1.2_spec-1.2/> >> (rev 1877112) >> - >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-json_1.1_spec-1.4/ >> >> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-json_1.1_spec-1.4/> >> (rev 1877115) >> - >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jsonb_1.0_spec-1.3/ >> >> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jsonb_1.0_spec-1.3/> >> (rev 1877118) >> Dist area: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1124 >> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1124> >> Staging repo: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/specs/ >> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/specs/> >> My key is still the same. >> >> Please vote: >> >> [ ] +1 release it >> [ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause} >> >> Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual. >> >> 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>
