Re: [VOTE] javaee-api 6.0-1 (take 2) -- CLOSED

[David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>]

On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:54 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> I unzipped and built the source-release zip.  It builds a lot more artifacts than you show here, is there some reason not to release the -tomcat- artifacts too?

It's there:  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/javaee-api-6.0-1-tomcat.jar

> The javaee-api-6.0-1.jar has the same README.txt as the javaee-api-libs-6.0-1.zip which doesn't seem ideal.

Adjusted the build so it won't be included.

> The javaee-api-6.0-1-sources.jar I get only has a few  javax/management/j2ee/ and  javax/transaction/ classes in it. (this might be due to how I have my local nexus configured, but I'd prefer the build to fail if it can't construct a consistent result)

Understood.  I added explicit dependencies on the source jars and that seems to have done the trick in ensuring consistency.

> IIUC the reason for not using the maven-bundle-plugin is to generate an all-in-one sources jar which doesn't appear to me to be in the list of artifacts under vote.

Those are also there.  The published javaee-api-6.0-1-sources.jar contains the expected 1195 java source files.  The javaee-api-6.0-1-tomcat-sources.jar contains the expected 1059 java source files.

> The javaee-api-6.0-1.jar does not include the org.apache.geronimo.specs:provider-registry jar contents nor specify an appropriate bundle activator which means it will be pretty useless in an osgi environment.  It looks to me as if there are 3 bundle activator classes already in the jar so maybe using this under osgi is unrealistic.  I'm not sure what the activation and jpa activators do.

I added the same manifest bits from the geronimo-ejb_3.1_spec pom.  I hope that I added it correctly :)

> I don't have any particular objection to releasing these but I think the problems above are serious enough so I won't vote +1 at this time.

Sounds familiar :)

   "I'm not going to vote -1 but I also don't feel I can vote +1 either.  I'm planning to fix geronimo's similar problems soon at which point without strong arguments I'll start voting -1 to situations like this."
   http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200905.mbox/%3C8D5ED770-4857-4A49-BB93-7B8870D5D453@yahoo.com%3E

My understanding was that if the shade plugin were to create source jars, it would address your concerns -- hence the desire to ensure tools like shade create source jars.  I could easily be misunderstanding the essence of the post.


I think that covers all the concerns.  New binaries rolled and a new vote coming up!

Thank you for the time and attention to detail!


-David


> On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:06 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> 
>> One more try with the license and contents issues fixed.
>> 
>> The staging repo & binaries:
>> 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/javaee-api-6.0-1.jar
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/javaee-api-6.0-1.zip
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-041/org/apache/openejb/javaee-api/6.0-1/javaee-api-6.0-1-source-release.zip
>> 
>> Tag:
>> 
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/tags/javaee-api-6.0-1
>> 
>> Ok, we should be good now.
>> 
>> My +1
>> 
>> 
>> -David
>> 
>