You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> on 2016/03/26 21:18:14 UTC

JCache dependency

Hello Geronimo community!

I have noticed that you 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

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by 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
>> 
>>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.

Took a look at it. 
Technically I could release this easily, but geronimo-specs have a rather bad reputation already for shipping totally undocumented stuff. 
That is imo not good. Thus I’d like to ask if anyone is up for helping me with adding javadocs. 

Gonna start with it tonight.
Please ping me on irc #openejb so we can divide the work.

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 11.05.2016 um 08:40 schrieb Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> 
> Is this still needed?
> If so I can run the release today.
> 
> LieGrue,
> 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
>>> 
>>>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.

Is this still needed?
If so I can run the release today.

LieGrue,
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
>> 
>>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by 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
>> >> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >> >>> >>>> >>
>> >> >>> >>>> >
>> >> >>> >>>> >
>> >> >>> >>>
>> >> >>> >>>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by 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
>> >> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >> >>> >>>> >>
>> >> >>> >>>> >
>> >> >>> >>>> >
>> >> >>> >>>
>> >> >>> >>>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by 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 <
> rmannibucau@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
> >> >>> >>>> >> >
> >> >>> >>>> >> >
> >> >>> >>>> >>
> >> >>> >>>> >
> >> >>> >>>> >
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by 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 <
> rmannibucau@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
> >> >>> >>>> >> >
> >> >>> >>>> >> >
> >> >>> >>>> >>
> >> >>> >>>> >
> >> >>> >>>> >
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with flying
colors :)

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" <ds...@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
> >>> >>>> >> >
> >>> >>>> >> >
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

I just mention to mention that Apache Ignite passes JCache TCK with flying
colors :)

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" <ds...@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
> >>> >>>> >> >
> >>> >>>> >> >
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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 <ds...@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 <jo...@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" <ds...@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
>>> >>>> >> >
>>> >>>> >> >
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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 <ds...@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 <jo...@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" <ds...@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
>>> >>>> >> >
>>> >>>> >> >
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@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 <rmannibucau@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 <jo...@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 <
>> dsetrakyan@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" <ds...@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
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@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 <rmannibucau@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 <jo...@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 <
>> dsetrakyan@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" <ds...@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
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

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.

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 <jo...@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 <
> dsetrakyan@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" <ds...@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
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

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.

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 <jo...@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 <
> dsetrakyan@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" <ds...@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
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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 <jo...@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" <ds...@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
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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 <jo...@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" <ds...@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
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

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?

D.

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@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" <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

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?

D.

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@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" <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.

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" <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.

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" <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

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 <rm...@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" <ds...@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 <ds...@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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

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 <rm...@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" <ds...@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 <ds...@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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Antonio Calabretta <an...@gmail.com>.

A dc ax
Il 27/mar/2016 11:35 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau",a, <rm...@gmail.com> ha
scritto:
>the xz Zürich dry zit da x x da x h Titicaca a,w a aa aa otite cdx e x a
dyld cd g a,aa dc a xc a x a HG
> Alpha cause asf doesnt have oracle tck so we cant validate binary compat
but it targets jcache 1.0. More a legal thing than anyvittima. Un thing
else. If you have access to tck and can validate the yang cdx tsaar x aan
xxxzx a HTC. Gita aa vigoroso vigorosi x a gita guitige g. A a, dc a x w x
aa dc gita guitig,a,aha da da DVD a good got ha gita guitig guitige.
goto,,a,a g,y,got,guitig guitige gotico ag a,, x da we cazucchero Zutphen a
n move on 1.0x a,q aa a a x a x a xxv xxx x a te ti,you toys a a a,GG,ad
the,a,aa xv a,a,a xx wha cc cdx a a tu a,ad xxxzx www x
>
> Le 27 mars 2016 00:21, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <ds...@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 <ds...@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!
>>> >>si situationeel:: wa IVOOR ufo uit uk a
>>> >> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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" <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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" <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

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 <rm...@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 <ds...@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
> >
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.

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 <rm...@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 <ds...@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
> >
> >
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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 <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.

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 <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>

Re: JCache dependency

Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@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 <ds...@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
>