Details about the org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-json_1.1_spec:1.4 release?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Details about the org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-json_1.1_spec:1.4 release?

Eric Norman
I see that a 1.4 version of geronimo-json_1.1_spec appears to have been released on May 4, 2020.  Can anyone provide any details about what this release was about?

The binary classes appear to be identical to the previously released 1.3 version of the same.  Also the JIRA version at [1] doesn't appear to have been marked as released yet with the details about what was fixed or changed in version 1.4.

So I was wondering if this release was intentional and the 1.4 version should be used going forward or if something else has happened here?


I'd appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Regards,
Eric
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Details about the org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-json_1.1_spec:1.4 release?

Raymond Auge
It's an update to the OSGi metadata I do believe. So the only change is in the manifest.mf.

- Ray

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 16:27 Eric Norman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I see that a 1.4 version of geronimo-json_1.1_spec appears to have been released on May 4, 2020.  Can anyone provide any details about what this release was about?

The binary classes appear to be identical to the previously released 1.3 version of the same.  Also the JIRA version at [1] doesn't appear to have been marked as released yet with the details about what was fixed or changed in version 1.4.

So I was wondering if this release was intentional and the 1.4 version should be used going forward or if something else has happened here?


I'd appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Regards,
Eric
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Details about the org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-json_1.1_spec:1.4 release?

Eric Norman-2
Hi Ray,

I don't see any substantive changes to the manifest between version 1.3 and 1.4.  The only differences I see in the manifest are the bundle version numbers.

I've now compared the released source 1.3 and 1.4 jar files and the only difference is that the maven-shade-plugin was added to the pom.xml and the copyright year was updated in the NOTICE file.  But it doesn't appear that the maven-shade-plugin actually changed anything in the released binary file.

Were you attempting to use the shade plugin to rename the javax.** packages to jakarta.** in the output jar file?  If so it doesn't look like it worked at all.

Also, was I looking in the right place for the JIRA tracking of these geronimo-specs/** artifacts?

Regards,
-Eric





On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:26 AM Raymond Auge <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's an update to the OSGi metadata I do believe. So the only change is in the manifest.mf.

- Ray

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 16:27 Eric Norman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I see that a 1.4 version of geronimo-json_1.1_spec appears to have been released on May 4, 2020.  Can anyone provide any details about what this release was about?

The binary classes appear to be identical to the previously released 1.3 version of the same.  Also the JIRA version at [1] doesn't appear to have been marked as released yet with the details about what was fixed or changed in version 1.4.

So I was wondering if this release was intentional and the 1.4 version should be used going forward or if something else has happened here?


I'd appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Regards,
Eric
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Details about the org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-json_1.1_spec:1.4 release?

Raymond Auge
Actually, I don't think I did that release. I'll have to investigate in source control to know for sure (is been a while ☺️).

- Ray

On Mon., Jul. 20, 2020, 7:57 p.m. Eric Norman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ray,

I don't see any substantive changes to the manifest between version 1.3 and 1.4.  The only differences I see in the manifest are the bundle version numbers.

I've now compared the released source 1.3 and 1.4 jar files and the only difference is that the maven-shade-plugin was added to the pom.xml and the copyright year was updated in the NOTICE file.  But it doesn't appear that the maven-shade-plugin actually changed anything in the released binary file.

Were you attempting to use the shade plugin to rename the javax.** packages to jakarta.** in the output jar file?  If so it doesn't look like it worked at all.

Also, was I looking in the right place for the JIRA tracking of these geronimo-specs/** artifacts?

Regards,
-Eric





On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:26 AM Raymond Auge <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's an update to the OSGi metadata I do believe. So the only change is in the manifest.mf.

- Ray

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 16:27 Eric Norman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I see that a 1.4 version of geronimo-json_1.1_spec appears to have been released on May 4, 2020.  Can anyone provide any details about what this release was about?

The binary classes appear to be identical to the previously released 1.3 version of the same.  Also the JIRA version at [1] doesn't appear to have been marked as released yet with the details about what was fixed or changed in version 1.4.

So I was wondering if this release was intentional and the 1.4 version should be used going forward or if something else has happened here?


I'd appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Regards,
Eric
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Details about the org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-json_1.1_spec:1.4 release?

Raymond Auge
So it appears the reason for the 1.4 release was to create a `jakarta` classifier [1].

:)

- Ray


On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:23 PM Raymond Auge <[hidden email]> wrote:
Actually, I don't think I did that release. I'll have to investigate in source control to know for sure (is been a while ☺️).

- Ray

On Mon., Jul. 20, 2020, 7:57 p.m. Eric Norman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ray,

I don't see any substantive changes to the manifest between version 1.3 and 1.4.  The only differences I see in the manifest are the bundle version numbers.

I've now compared the released source 1.3 and 1.4 jar files and the only difference is that the maven-shade-plugin was added to the pom.xml and the copyright year was updated in the NOTICE file.  But it doesn't appear that the maven-shade-plugin actually changed anything in the released binary file.

Were you attempting to use the shade plugin to rename the javax.** packages to jakarta.** in the output jar file?  If so it doesn't look like it worked at all.

Also, was I looking in the right place for the JIRA tracking of these geronimo-specs/** artifacts?

Regards,
-Eric





On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:26 AM Raymond Auge <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's an update to the OSGi metadata I do believe. So the only change is in the manifest.mf.

- Ray

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 16:27 Eric Norman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I see that a 1.4 version of geronimo-json_1.1_spec appears to have been released on May 4, 2020.  Can anyone provide any details about what this release was about?

The binary classes appear to be identical to the previously released 1.3 version of the same.  Also the JIRA version at [1] doesn't appear to have been marked as released yet with the details about what was fixed or changed in version 1.4.

So I was wondering if this release was intentional and the 1.4 version should be used going forward or if something else has happened here?


I'd appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Regards,
Eric


--
Raymond Augé (@rotty3000)
Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Details about the org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-json_1.1_spec:1.4 release?

Eric Norman
Oh, I see it now.  So this was an intermediate step in support of migration to jakarta EE 9 then.

Apologies if this is covered somewhere that I could not find, but is there a roadmap for how the upcoming jakarta EE 9 release will impact the geronimo-spec-* projects going forward?  Will the geronimo-spec-* artifacts be retired and everyone migrate to the equivalent artifacts from the eclipse ee4j project instead?

Thanks and best regards,
-Eric

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:50 AM Raymond Auge <[hidden email]> wrote:
So it appears the reason for the 1.4 release was to create a `jakarta` classifier [1].

:)

- Ray


On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:23 PM Raymond Auge <[hidden email]> wrote:
Actually, I don't think I did that release. I'll have to investigate in source control to know for sure (is been a while ☺️).

- Ray

On Mon., Jul. 20, 2020, 7:57 p.m. Eric Norman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ray,

I don't see any substantive changes to the manifest between version 1.3 and 1.4.  The only differences I see in the manifest are the bundle version numbers.

I've now compared the released source 1.3 and 1.4 jar files and the only difference is that the maven-shade-plugin was added to the pom.xml and the copyright year was updated in the NOTICE file.  But it doesn't appear that the maven-shade-plugin actually changed anything in the released binary file.

Were you attempting to use the shade plugin to rename the javax.** packages to jakarta.** in the output jar file?  If so it doesn't look like it worked at all.

Also, was I looking in the right place for the JIRA tracking of these geronimo-specs/** artifacts?

Regards,
-Eric





On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:26 AM Raymond Auge <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's an update to the OSGi metadata I do believe. So the only change is in the manifest.mf.

- Ray

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 16:27 Eric Norman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I see that a 1.4 version of geronimo-json_1.1_spec appears to have been released on May 4, 2020.  Can anyone provide any details about what this release was about?

The binary classes appear to be identical to the previously released 1.3 version of the same.  Also the JIRA version at [1] doesn't appear to have been marked as released yet with the details about what was fixed or changed in version 1.4.

So I was wondering if this release was intentional and the 1.4 version should be used going forward or if something else has happened here?


I'd appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Regards,
Eric


--
Raymond Augé (@rotty3000)
Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay)