Ok I fixed the issue. Actually the spec module was clean but the bundle configuration was not so we were badly including JASPIC dependencies.
I'll open up a VOTE for it -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
