go ahead 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 mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:41, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> a écrit : > We can raise the issue at Jakarta > > Meanwhile, can I remove the jaspic api classes because they really don't > have anything to do in this spec jar > > > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:37 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> MP license is ok (Apache2) but Jakarta is EPLs so keeps the ambiguity for >> us. >> That said it is good to reuse the same GAV for end users so we might ask >> jakarta to double license its api jars? >> >> 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 mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:33, Jean-Louis Monteiro < >> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> >> a écrit : >> >> > Yep that was the point. >> > So I was asking if we should do the same yes or not. >> > >> > That seems to be your opinion Romain. >> > Mark on the other end is having some doubts about the license. >> > -- >> > Jean-Louis Monteiro >> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >> > http://www.tomitribe.com >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:31 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:29, Jean-Louis Monteiro < >> >> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> >> >> a écrit : >> >> >> >> > Thanks Romain. I'm fine with using Eclipse jars if from a legal >> point of >> >> > view, it works. >> >> > Otherwise, I'd like to split our spec jars. >> >> > >> >> > What about MicroProfile? >> >> > >> >> >> >> We already agreed to not redo the API and use microprofile jars. >> >> >> >> >> >> > It's the same license and we are using them in our MicroProfile >> >> > implementations. >> >> > -- >> >> > Jean-Louis Monteiro >> >> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >> >> > http://www.tomitribe.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:26 PM Mark Struberg >> <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid >> >> > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> depends what their license is. EPL is (weak) copyleft. Thus I would >> >> like >> >> >> to avoid exposing it downstream as api. >> >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Am 03.09.2019 um 16:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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 mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:18, Jean-Louis Monteiro < >> >> >> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
