Here's the PR for reference: https://github.com/apache/johnzon/pull/21
Romain gave it a thumbs-up. I'll try and get those JIRA references today. Jon On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Gallimore < jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > I submitted a PR for Johnzon, and owe some JIRA references. I don't think > it has been merged yet. I'm definitely not expecting you or Romain to do > the work alone. Thanks for the OWB releases! > > Jon > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > wrote: > >> Folks, can we FIRST focus on getting TomEE-7.0.5 done? >> >> We agreed that we FIRST do 7.0.5, and only THEN ship TomEE-7.1 in a >> branch and move TomEE8 to master. >> >> I've now released OWB-1.7.5, next up is Johnzon-1.0.1. >> Are all the fixes for Johnzon already applied and all the patches >> shipped? I've not seen them yet. And Romain and I cannot do all the work >> alone. Or rather it will take a bit time then. >> And the last puzzle part is OpenJPA-2.4.3 and 3.0.0. >> >> So please less talking, more hacking. >> >> txs and LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> On Wednesday, 2 May 2018, 07:07:54 CEST, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Just take this one: >> >> " >> Of course having a TomEE-7.1 which bumps the requirement to java8 is cool. >> And I fully support that. >> " >> >> Not at all "I fully support TomEE 7.1 for MP". >> >> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 7.1, I even proposed something very >> closed months ago (before we got the 8 branch) but I'm against creating a >> branch and play with the versioning policy until we can justify it by >> something affecting users+being justified technically. >> I don't think we got here yet. >> Take it as "how would it affect users?"+"how does it affects us?". First >> answer is clearly "no impact" - we are already in prod with j8 - and last >> one is pretty much the same technically AFAIK. >> >> >> >> 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> >> >> 2018-05-02 0:42 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Could I ask for an off-topic personal favor? Sometimes your email >> replies >> > come with no quoting at all and the only way to find your words is to >> read >> > both the old and new emails and do a mental diff. >> > >> > I've been tested a few times for dyslexia and don't have it, but my >> > reading speed is very impaired regardless. If you can help me by taking >> > care to ensure there is proper quoting, I'd be deeply appreciative. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > David Blevins >> > http://twitter.com/dblevins >> > http://www.tomitribe.com >> > >> > > On May 1, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Le 1 mai 2018 23:08, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> > > >> > > We can certainly continue discussing, but there have been 7.1 >> discussions >> > > including people like Rudy, Jean-Louis and Jonathan volunteering on >> list >> > to >> > > work on a 7.1. Mark raising some questions and chiming in with "I >> fully >> > > support that." >> > > >> > > >> > > This is likely reading only the part you wanted ;). Mark always put >> some >> > > conditions to that, JL doesnt care much from what i read and to play >> the >> > > same "finger in the wind" game I think Rudy - correct me if Im wrong - >> > > would support any technical solution leading to a mp distro. >> > > >> > > >> > > This is finger-in-the-wind observation of positive response and >> certainly >> > > there is still room for other feedback. >> > > >> > > What would you recommend we do from here? >> > > >> > > >> > > First we need to clearly state what is the difference between a 7.1 >> and >> > 8. >> > > All i read was a half baked 8 (so 8 from our last months discussions) >> or >> > a >> > > 7+mp which doesnt work if we want to do a 7+some ee 8. MP not driving >> > tomee >> > > by design (and it is good), it shouldnt imply any versioning to stay >> > > consistent for end users. >> > > >> > > Technically we can do a mp distro on tomee 7.0 (using toolchain) >> and/or >> > > tomee 8.0 (natively). >> > > >> > > Keep in mind it is as minor for the project as the plume distro - we >> can >> > > even do a "all permutations distro" update on 7.0 and 8.0. It is far >> to >> > > modify the project nature, goal or codebase. >> > > >> > > Once we know what we want to bring then we can go through the standard >> > > process of a vote if people disagree or just move forward. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > David Blevins >> > > http://twitter.com/dblevins >> > > http://www.tomitribe.com >> > > >> > >> On May 1, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Which leads to the same David, no? >> > >> There is no decision taken and no real argument - before your mail - >> > for a >> > >> 7.1. >> > >> Either there are too much off list discussions or we should better >> > handle >> > >> thread outcomes cause ATM, if you follow the list, discussions and >> acts >> > > are >> > >> not consistent :(. >> > >> >> > >> Le 1 mai 2018 21:24, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a >> écrit >> > : >> > >> >> > >> I've only ever seen feedback of the nature that if people were >> willing >> > to >> > >> do the extra 7.1 work in addition to the TomEE 8 work, it wasn't a >> > > problem. >> > >> >> > >> Note, just got off the MicroProfile hangout and there we've proposed >> to >> > >> doing both a MicroProfile 1.4 and MicroProfile 2.0 release on June >> 6th. >> > >> The release contents would be the same with the exception of the >> minimum >> > >> Java EE version; 1.4 will remain at Java EE 7 and MicroProfile 2.0 >> will >> > be >> > >> Java EE 8. Work would probably shift to MicroProfile 2.x afterwards, >> > >> though future MicroProfile 1.x releases could happen if component >> specs >> > >> want to continue to cater to Java EE 7 or don't have any Java EE >> > > dependency >> > >> at all. That means MicroProfile will officially have two streams: >> > >> >> > >> - MicroProfile 1.x, Java EE 7, (potential TomEE 7.1) >> > >> - MicroProfile 2.x, Java EE 8/Jakarta EE 8, TomEE 8 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> David Blevins >> > >> http://twitter.com/dblevins >> > >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> > >> >> > >>> On Apr 30, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > > >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> Hmm, can have missed something but didnt the outcome of the thread >> have >> > >>> been to work in tomee 8 branch (always better to avoid merges ;))? >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> 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> >> > >>> >> > >>> 2018-04-30 16:34 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro < >> > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com >> > >> : >> > >>> >> > >>>> Hi community, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I have created a branch based on current master (aka TomEE 7.0.x) >> as >> > >>>> discussed a while back. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I have backported the microprofile JWT work from TomEE 8 branch. >> > >>>> The branch is https://github.com/jeanouii/tomee/tree/microprofile_ >> > >> backport >> > >>>> I have pushed what I have currently in there. I'll need to test >> more >> > >>>> deeply. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> JLouis >> > >>>> >> > >>>> -- >> > >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro >> > >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >> > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com >> > >>>> >> > >> > >> > >
