Re: JCache dependency

[Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>]

+1

Lg,
Strub

> Am 30.03.2016 um 09:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> 
> Just checked and our spec jar passes sigtest. Not sure for this week
> but think we can run a vote next one if nobody objects - don't
> hesitate to ping if nothing happens ;).
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
> 
> 
> 2016-03-30 9:20 GMT+02:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>:
>> TCK does contain the sigtest:
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/tree/master/sigtest
>> 
>> Looking forward to getting the 1.0 version :)
>> 
>> D.
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <ds...@apache.org> a écrit
>>> :
>>>> 
>>>> I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with
>>> flying colors :)
>>> 
>>> True! Totally forgot tck were open! Didn't check sigtest, is it there too?
>>> If so nothing blocking a 1.0.
>>> 
>>>> We have it integrated into our build routine and verify it using our CI
>>> tests. In addition, it was verified by one of the JCache spec leads, Greg
>>> Luck, who confirmed that Ignite complies with the spec.
>>>> 
>>>> Given the above, can Geronimo provide us with JCache 1.0 spec JAR?
>>>> 
>>>> D.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ok, let me try to make it clearer (and don't hesitate to shout if still
>>> not ;)):
>>>>> 
>>>>> TCK are not only @Test but also some bianary validations (aka sigtest
>>>>> or signature tests) the spec jars need to pass. It basically checks
>>>>> you respect the spec signature for the supported java version of the
>>>>> spec. Not having TCK and not being related to a public spec (like BVal
>>>>> or JBatch) makes this sigtest validation missing @asf side so until we
>>>>> get this or somebody checks generated bytecode of spec jars (and not
>>>>> sources) then we'll not use final versions to not show a spec
>>>>> compliance we maybe don't have.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2016-03-29 21:33 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We will switch the Ignite JAR to the 1.0-alpha-1 version from
>>> Geronimo,
>>>>>>> but I am still very confused.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I do not understand why we need to check any TCK compliance when
>>> creating
>>>>>>> a JAR for the JSR107 spec. The TCK compliance should be checked
>>> against an
>>>>>>> implementation, not a spec.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm confused by this statement as well.  TCK is only applied to impl
>>> so not
>>>>>> sure why you might think that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What Romain was trying to convey was that the alpha-1 release
>>> indicates that
>>>>>> no implementation has checked it as TCK compliant.  One of the JSR
>>>>>> requirements though is to produce a valid API JAR.  If someone can do
>>> that,
>>>>>> then this can likely be promoted to a 1.0 release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is there any place in Apache documentation explaining this process?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <ds...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am still a bit confused. I was talking about the version of the
>>>>>>>>> JCache
>>>>>>>> spec API, essentially only interfaces. The spec does not have any
>>>>>>>> implementation, nor implies that every project importing or
>>> depending on
>>>>>>>> the spec must be compliant with the spec.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In my view implementation and TCK compliance are a different
>>> matter,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> it should be up to the project community itself to declare the
>>> compliance
>>>>>>>> with a certain spec and pass the TCK.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Am I wrong?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, while not passing sigtest practise is to not release 1.0.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <
>>> johndament@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I think what Romain is referring to is other TCKs.  Generally,
>>>>>>>>>> geronimo
>>>>>>>> JAR versions don't reflect the version of spec that they implement.
>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>> may be alpha releases that match EDRs, or alphas that are based on
>>> the
>>>>>>>> final version but with minor tweaks.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> For reference, Apache ActiveMQ Artemis relies on alpha2 of the
>>> JMS 2
>>>>>>>> spec.
>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/pom.xml#L131
>>>>>>>>>> It's feature complete, and Artemis passes the TCK, its just
>>>>>>>>>> alpha2
>>>>>>>> because we haven't done a thorough enough job of making sure the
>>>>>>>> API
>>> is
>>>>>>>> sane.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>>>>>>> <ds...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Romain, I am not sure what you mean by not having access to
>>>>>>>>>>> TCK.
>>> Are
>>>>>>>> you talking about validating compatibility with JCAche using the
>>>>>>>> TCK
>>> [1]?
>>>>>>>> In this case, Apache Ignite does pass the TCK. Moreover, the TCK
>>> seems to
>>>>>>>> be licensed under Apache 2.0 [2]. Can you please explain?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107tck/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate
>>> binary
>>>>>>>> compat
>>>>>>>>>>>> but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anything
>>> else. If
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have access to tck and can validate the binaries we can move
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>> 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <
>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> a
>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only issue I see is the version. JSR107 spec is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>>>> [1],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while the Geronimo JCache jar is on version 1.0-alpha-1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any chance you can upgrade the version?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/tree/v1.0.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not reusing geronimo jar? Generally @apache spec are
>>> owned by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geronimo and reused as much as possible using geronimo as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> umbrella
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec project. What's the issue you hit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-03-26 21:20 GMT+01:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, this is the JCache maven dependency I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring
>>> to:
>>> 
>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Geronimo community!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have noticed that Geronimo implements JCache spec and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCache library hosted in Apache maven and licensed under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>> 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> license
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We, in Apache Ignite community also have implemented
>>> JCache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and would like to do something similar. Do you know what
>>> steps
>>>>>>>> do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take in order to have the latest JCache spec version
>>> licensed
>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Ignite, PMC chair
>> 
>>