You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> on 2016/05/11 06:40:35 UTC
Re: JCache dependency
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>.
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
>>>
>>>