> Not, it is not correct Gurkan ;). > jakarta does NOT support OSGi properly, it does it the old way and break > several rules. For instance last CDI spec jar contains:
As I said in my previous email, I am not an OSGI expert. But, what I can do is that I can ping the CDI team in EE4J to add features to support OWB-OSGI or other ASF projects? Could you explain in detail? Regards. Gurkan On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 9:39 PM Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > So to conclude on this point not belonging to OWB, we still need our fork >> and eclipse always answered saying "yes we want OSGi [but we don't really >> know]" - and I know eclipse+EE has a lot of OSGi experts but they don't >> work on that factually so OSGi is done at minimal cost. > > OK thanks for the clarification. I am not an OSGI expert. > > Ok Gurkan, let's be concrete, do you - you as you personally - accept and >> commit yourself to port any commit to one of the two branches to the other >> for all the time the project is at apache? >> if so fine, if not -1 to create us unneeded (+ still unjustified by facts) >> work. > > :=) > Hey, I'm just proposing what I think about. If nobody cares about it or > is not beneficial, it is ok, and also there is no need to VOTE (This is why > I'd like to get more opinions on it). But look at Weld, they did the > update, https://github.com/weld and full of updating their pom to use > jakarta.* > > Currently all of the OWB modules (webbeans-ee, webbeans-el22 etc), use > geronimo-...specs which depend on javax.*. Today or tomorrow, we will > eventually move to jakarta.* namespace. Instead of working with such > shading plugin stuff as a workaround, I just offer to take the master to > jakarta.* and update all OWB modules' dependency from javax.* to jakarta.* > official APIS. This is not related to who will maintain the branches. You > know that ASF works as a voluntary based approach. You can not push anybody > to work on anything as in commercial companies. > > Also, regarding the cost and energy you mention to maintain the branch, > via Geronimo specs, you will need to update all of the Geronimo Specs and > maintain them. I think this is not rational because now, jakarta.* official > API license is EPL and Apache friendly. Why do I need to maintain for > example Geronimo EL? > > Regards. > Gurkan > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 9:25 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le dim. 7 juin 2020 à 20:20, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >> > Hi David >> > >> > I’m not sure exactly how it impacts this decision, but IIUC the geronimo >> > > cdi spec jar is rather essential for some uses as it has OSGI support >> > > whereas IIUC the eclipse/jakarta one doesn’t. >> > > >> > No, it is not correct. It has OSGI support. GlassFish is an OSGI based >> > server.You can grap the code from https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/cdi >> and >> > build. It has OSGI enabled MANIFEST.MF file. >> > >> >> Not, it is not correct Gurkan ;). >> jakarta does NOT support OSGi properly, it does it the old way and break >> several rules. For instance last CDI spec jar contains: >> >> Manifest-Version: 1.0 >> Bundle-Description: APIs for CDI (Contexts and Dependency Injection fo >> r Java) >> Bundle-License: https://repository.jboss.org/licenses/apache-2.0.txt >> Bundle-SymbolicName: jakarta.enterprise.cdi-api >> Built-By: default >> Bnd-LastModified: 1590678420932 >> Bundle-ManifestVersion: 2 >> Bundle-DocURL: https://jboss.org >> Bundle-Vendor: JBoss by Red Hat, Inc. >> Import-Package: jakarta.el;version="4.0",jakarta.inject;version="[2.0, >> 3)",jakarta.interceptor;version="[2.0,3)" >> Require-Capability: osgi.ee;filter:="(&(osgi.ee=JavaSE)(version=1.8))" >> Tool: Bnd-2.4.1.201501161923 >> Originally-Created-By: Apache Maven Bundle Plugin >> Export-Package: jakarta.decorator;version="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterpr >> ise.inject",jakarta.enterprise.context;version="3.0";uses:="jakarta.e >> nterprise.util,jakarta.inject",jakarta.enterprise.context.control;ver >> sion="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.context,jakarta.interceptor",jak >> arta.enterprise.context.spi;version="3.0",jakarta.enterprise.event;ve >> rsion="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.util",jakarta.enterprise.inject >> ;version="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.context,jakarta.enterprise.u >> til,jakarta.inject",jakarta.enterprise.inject.literal;version="3.0";u >> ses:="jakarta.enterprise.util,jakarta.inject",jakarta.enterprise.inje >> ct.se;version="3.0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.inject,jakarta.enterpri >> se.inject.spi",jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi;version="3.0";uses:="jak >> arta.el,jakarta.enterprise.context.spi,jakarta.enterprise.event,jakar >> ta.enterprise.inject,jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi.configurator,jakar >> ta.interceptor",jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi.configurator;version="3 >> .0";uses:="jakarta.enterprise.context.spi,jakarta.enterprise.event,ja >> karta.enterprise.inject,jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi,jakarta.enterpr >> ise.util",jakarta.enterprise.util;version="3.0" >> Bundle-Name: CDI APIs >> Bundle-Version: 3.0.0.M4 >> Build-Jdk-Spec: 1.8 >> Created-By: Apache Maven Bundle Plugin >> Build-Jdk: 1.8.0_202 >> >> Where are the osgi.serviceloader and osgi.contract ? >> This is important and used by OSGi-CDI for example (even if it can be >> worked around). >> >> So to conclude on this point not belonging to OWB, we still need our fork >> and eclipse always answered saying "yes we want OSGi [but we don't really >> know]" - and I know eclipse+EE has a lot of OSGi experts but they don't >> work on that factually so OSGi is done at minimal cost. >> >> >> > >> > Gurkan’s proposal will only add difficulty for developers and probably >> > > users. >> > > >> > What is the difficulty? The change will only affect maintaining the >> javax.* >> > branch and fully renamed jakarta.* dependencies in master. >> > >> >> Ok Gurkan, let's be concrete, do you - you as you personally - accept and >> commit yourself to port any commit to one of the two branches to the other >> for all the time the project is at apache? >> if so fine, if not -1 to create us unneeded (+ still unjustified by facts) >> work. >> >> >> > >> > Regards. >> > Gurkan >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 8:58 PM David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I’m not sure exactly how it impacts this decision, but IIUC the >> geronimo >> > > cdi spec jar is rather essential for some uses as it has OSGI support >> > > whereas IIUC the eclipse/jakarta one doesn’t. >> > > >> > > Personally I’m afraid I’m totally on Romain’s side so far, AFAICT >> > Gurkan’s >> > > proposal will only add difficulty for developers and probably users. >> > > Although I haven’t been active here for years I might even vote. >> > > >> > > thanks >> > > David Jencks >> > > >> > > > On Jun 7, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu < >> cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> Tomcat works with branches since years without any issue. >> > > >> All projects we tried to use branches we abandoned branches just >> after >> > > >> having done them. >> > > >> It is fine if the old branch is no more used but here we know we >> will >> > > >> maintain javax branch more than jakarta one for some time so I >> think >> > we >> > > >> should avoid it while it is not justified or one of the 2 branches >> > > (javax) >> > > >> is "almost dead". >> > > > >> > > > Working with branches always happens in all open source projects. >> And >> > > > there are times when it is logical to create the branch. Jakarta EE >> 9 >> > API >> > > > migration is the best time to create such a branch. Eventually, we >> will >> > > > create such a branch in Jakarta EE 10. >> > > > >> > > > Fact there will be no more javax is useless IMHO, only question we >> > should >> > > >> care about is "do we have javax users?" and should we work on >> javax >> > > branch >> > > >> enough to care about having 2 duplicate branches. Answer is >> obviously >> > > yes >> > > >> and more than jakarta users today, therefore I think for some >> months >> > > (maybe >> > > >> a few years) we should stick to javax as our primary branch and >> ensure >> > > the >> > > >> alignments and bugfixes can trivially - == without any action from >> dev >> > > - be >> > > >> ported. It is what we have today. >> > > >> >> > > > What could be more natural than maintaining branches (with >> backporting >> > > from >> > > > master only if necessary). With Jakarta EE 10, we will eventually >> > create >> > > > the branch for supporting the EE 8. Also, for the release >> versioning, >> > it >> > > is >> > > > nice to have a 3.x release. The community will notice that 3.x is >> the >> > > > starting point of Jakarta EE support. Will you release 2.x with the >> > > > intention of supporting Jakarta EE 9? I am personally not positive >> on >> > > this. >> > > > I think, 3.x release will also get more interest even if the >> > > functionality >> > > > and API stay the same. We can prepare the press release for it. >> > > > >> > > > Note we shouldn't depend on jakarta/javax api anyway (neither as >> > groupId >> > > >> nor as transitive dep so this change must stay a noop for >> consumers). >> > > >> >> > > > What is the problem of depending on the official Jakarta EE CDI >> API? It >> > > is >> > > > an Apache friendly license. Instead of maintaining the Geronimo CDI >> API >> > > > internally, it is more logical to use Jakarta EE official CDI API >> and >> > > > maintain this API with EE4J community. >> > > > >> > > > would also appreciate if you do a vote if you can point out the >> > breaking >> > > >> changes - except the package renaming - justifying to fork ourself >> and >> > > what >> > > >> does not work with current solution, can ease the decision/vote. >> > > >> Today using jakarta/EE9 API is quite easy ( >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/master/src/site/apt/jakarta.apt >> > > >> ). >> > > >> We should absolutely enhance the pom experience though but it is >> > > trivial to >> > > >> do at maven level - I was envisionning to do it in shade plugin to >> be >> > > more >> > > >> precise. >> > > >> >> > > > I know that there will be no functional change. But, I am also >> against >> > > > shading for jakarta.*. If there will be no change on Jakarta EE 10, >> > will >> > > we >> > > > continue to shade? What happens when there will be a change in EJB, >> > JMS >> > > > etc specifications but no change in CDI in Jakarta EE 10? Also, >> VOTING >> > is >> > > > the natural thing to do for the community decision. If the community >> > > would >> > > > like to keep it as it is via shading, it is fine. >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> To try to rephrase/clarify my questionning today: you ask for >> jakarta >> > > >> support, we already have it in a dev and project efficient way so >> why >> > > >> should we change since I don't hink there is anything new - once >> again >> > > if >> > > >> API starts to fully break discussion is different but github doesnt >> > > reflect >> > > >> that? >> > > >> >> > > > This is not just for Jakarta EE 9 support. As we know, there will >> be no >> > > API >> > > > (functional) change, only package renaming. But, I want to emphasize >> > that >> > > > with such turning points, it is so logical to integrate official >> > Jakarta >> > > > CDI API into our master (removing the geronimo-cdi), and release our >> > new >> > > > 3.x version and let the public know that OWB supports official CDI >> API >> > > > beginning with 3.x release. Yeah, shading is an option for package >> > > renaming >> > > > but think long term. Also, I am really against the shading. It >> really >> > > > disturbs the users which depend on OWB implementation. For example, >> > > > currently Glassfish supports Weld integration but one can also >> > implement >> > > > OWB to replace Weld in Glassfish. Therefore, instead of using the >> > shaded >> > > > version, it is really important to have the full Jakarta EE CDI API >> in >> > > our >> > > > poms. You will still have javax.* dependency in ur POMs even if >> doing a >> > > > shade. This is not good idea to still maintain javax.* in our POM >> > files. >> > > > >> > > > What are other opinions before formal voting? >> > > > Regards. >> > > > Gurkan >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 8:02 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Le dim. 7 juin 2020 à 18:49, Gurkan Erdogdu < >> cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > a >> > > >> écrit : >> > > >> >> > > >>> Tomcat created branch 10 for jakarta ee 9. Glassfish is also on >> > master. >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> Tomcat works with branches since years without any issue. >> > > >> All projects we tried to use branches we abandoned branches just >> after >> > > >> having done them. >> > > >> It is fine if the old branch is no more used but here we know we >> will >> > > >> maintain javax branch more than jakarta one for some time so I >> think >> > we >> > > >> should avoid it while it is not justified or one of the 2 branches >> > > (javax) >> > > >> is "almost dead". >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> sorry but not understand the resistance on this? will you always >> > shade >> > > ? >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> As mentionned, until API needs changes we can't easily handle - >> today >> > > there >> > > >> is no change. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> creating the new master and maintain the 2.x branch, is the best >> > > logical >> > > >>> way. there will be no javax.* any more. Tomcat maintains 3 >> branches >> > > and >> > > >> 1 >> > > >>> master. only maintains 1 branch and 1 master is totally fine. >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> Fact there will be no more javax is useless IMHO, only question we >> > > should >> > > >> care about is "do we have javax users?" and should we work on >> javax >> > > branch >> > > >> enough to care about having 2 duplicate branches. Answer is >> obviously >> > > yes >> > > >> and more than jakarta users today, therefore I think for some >> months >> > > (maybe >> > > >> a few years) we should stick to javax as our primary branch and >> ensure >> > > the >> > > >> alignments and bugfixes can trivially - == without any action from >> dev >> > > - be >> > > >> ported. It is what we have today. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I will propose a vote shortly to decide on to create a master with >> > 3.x >> > > >> with >> > > >>> fully support of jakarta with a normal pom dependency with jakarta >> > api. >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> Note we shouldn't depend on jakarta/javax api anyway (neither as >> > groupId >> > > >> nor as transitive dep so this change must stay a noop for >> consumers). >> > > >> I would also appreciate if you do a vote if you can point out the >> > > breaking >> > > >> changes - except the package renaming - justifying to fork ourself >> and >> > > what >> > > >> does not work with current solution, can ease the decision/vote. >> > > >> Today using jakarta/EE9 API is quite easy ( >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/master/src/site/apt/jakarta.apt >> > > >> ). >> > > >> We should absolutely enhance the pom experience though but it is >> > > trivial to >> > > >> do at maven level - I was envisionning to do it in shade plugin to >> be >> > > more >> > > >> precise. >> > > >> >> > > >> To try to rephrase/clarify my questionning today: you ask for >> jakarta >> > > >> support, we already have it in a dev and project efficient way so >> why >> > > >> should we change since I don't hink there is anything new - once >> again >> > > if >> > > >> API starts to fully break discussion is different but github doesnt >> > > reflect >> > > >> that? >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Regs >> > > >>> Gurkan >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On 7 Jun 2020 Sun at 18:05 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> Today we don't need, tomorrow I don't know but while API does not >> > > >> change >> > > >>>> (except the package) we shouldn't fork ourself IMHO (cause it is >> > what >> > > >> you >> > > >>>> propose as a consequence). >> > > >>>> If it becomes necessary let's do it but my vote is to stay lazy >> on >> > > >> that. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> side note for G API discussion belongs to dev@G but it is less >> an >> > > >> issue >> > > >>> to >> > > >>>> fork from now since we rarely update the API, the side note here >> is >> > > >> that >> > > >>>> CDI SE is already fully runnable on ASF stack with jakarta >> package >> > > >> since >> > > >>>> some weeks or months, we did all the needed releases. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> 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 dim. 7 juin 2020 à 16:42, Thomas Andraschko < >> > > >>>> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> > > >>>> a écrit : >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> AFAIR we dont need it as we shade a -jakarta.jar via our build. >> > > >>>>> As EE9 just changes the namespace, it's perfectly fine. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> I'm actually also a supporter of doing a hard cut but it's not >> > > >> required >> > > >>>> and >> > > >>>>> we can do it for EE 10. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> < >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>> Virenfrei. >> > > >>>>> www.avast.com >> > > >>>>> < >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> Am So., 7. Juni 2020 um 16:35 Uhr schrieb Gurkan Erdogdu < >> > > >>>>> cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com>: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>> We need to maintain two branches >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> EE 8 for javax.* package 2.x branch >> > > >>>>>> EE 9 for jakarta.* package 3.x master >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On 7 Jun 2020 Sun at 16:25 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Hi, >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> I'll probably restate my position on that: if EE 9 brings >> > > >>>>> significatively >> > > >>>>>>> new API yes - a quick review shows it is 1-1 with EE 8 but I >> can >> > > >>> have >> > > >>>>>>> missed sthg, looked quite fast. if EE9==EE8 then we can stay >> as >> > > >> we >> > > >>>> are >> > > >>>>> I >> > > >>>>>>> think avoiding to maintain two branches we can't merge >> regularly. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> 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 dim. 7 juin 2020 à 10:26, Gurkan Erdogdu < >> > > >>>> cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> >> > > >>>>> a >> > > >>>>>>> écrit : >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> Hi >> > > >>>>>>>> After the 2.x release, can we get the master to 3.0.0 to >> > > >> support >> > > >>>>>> upcoming >> > > >>>>>>>> Jakarta EE 9 release with jakarta.* namespace? >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> I also favor to use the Jakarta EE CDI API instead of using >> the >> > > >>>>> Apache >> > > >>>>>>>> based api. >> > > >>>>>>>> Regards >> > > >>>>>>>> Gurkan >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> -- >> > > >>>>>>>> Gurkan Erdogdu >> > > >>>>>>>> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> -- >> > > >>>>>> Gurkan Erdogdu >> > > >>>>>> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> -- >> > > >>> Gurkan Erdogdu >> > > >>> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Gurkan Erdogdu >> > > > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > Gurkan Erdogdu >> > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > >> > > > -- > Gurkan Erdogdu > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com > -- Gurkan Erdogdu http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
