My own +1 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 lun. 4 mai 2020 à 09:00, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit : > +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]> 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/ >> > > 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 >> > > 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] >> >: >> >> 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/ >> (rev 1877103) >> - >> 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/ >> (rev >> 1877109) >> - >> 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/ >> (rev >> 1877115) >> - >> 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 >> Staging repo: 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> >> >> >> >
