[VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

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

[VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Romain Manni-Bucau
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
+1 (non binding)

Regards
JB

Le 28 avr. 2020 à 07:59, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi everyone,

Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades.

Tags:
My key is still the same.

Please vote:

[ ] +1 release it
[ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause}

Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Francois Papon
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
+1 (non-binding)
regards,
François
[hidden email]
Le 28/04/2020 à 07:59, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Hi everyone,

Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades.

Tags:
My key is still the same.

Please vote:

[ ] +1 release it
[ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause}

Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Raymond Auge
+1

- Ray

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:14 AM Francois Papon <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
regards,
François
[hidden email]
Le 28/04/2020 à 07:59, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Hi everyone,

Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades.

Tags:
My key is still the same.

Please vote:

[ ] +1 release it
[ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause}

Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Mark Struberg
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
As explained in the other thread:

What is the difference between the various specs and their previous versions?
Afaict the only difference is jakartaEE, and we WILL  NOT MANAGE to do all via simple replacement. This is an absolute dead end. 
There have been plenty of smallish methods removed in e.g. EJB and servlet. But also in other specs. So we WILL need to go full scale. And I also expect more changes to come for JakartaEE9.

EE8 is FINISHED. There is NO change!

All which happens is done in JakartaEE. And we have all the work done since a year?
I could do a release of those jars today.
Also your list of specs is not final. There is quite a few missing.

So why not release from here?

Actually I'd move this to 


and then do the release.


LieGrue,
strub



Am 28.04.2020 um 07:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:

Hi everyone,

Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades.

Tags:
My key is still the same.

Please vote:

[ ] +1 release it
[ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause}

Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Romain Manni-Bucau


Le mar. 28 avr. 2020 à 18:25, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
As explained in the other thread:

What is the difference between the various specs and their previous versions?
Afaict the only difference is jakartaEE, and we WILL  NOT MANAGE to do all via simple replacement. This is an absolute dead end. 

Mark, you keep saying that but each time I ask for a proof of that you never answer.
Most of the spec are 1-1 (it was the deal of jakartaee8 and some spec had been forbidden to replace/remove anything).
So please list the diff to let us fix that point if accurate.
 
There have been plenty of smallish methods removed in e.g. EJB and servlet. But also in other specs. So we WILL need to go full scale. And I also expect more changes to come for JakartaEE9.


Ok, think it is your method removal ;).
It is not that accurate for this vote, both jars are not in the scope of this vote.

I agree on EE9 point and here we will just create the jar from scratch as usual, with the right package directly, no ambiguity or discussion IMHO.
 

EE8 is FINISHED. There is NO change!

Does not mean we don't need to release the jar, please just have a look to the versions of this thread (which is <1/6  of all specs), spec were finished when we did 1.0 but we are at 1.4 for some jars so not a point for me.
 

All which happens is done in JakartaEE. And we have all the work done since a year?
I could do a release of those jars today.

If you can do all jakarta jars I'm happy to cancel this vote as mentionned already, my goal was just to get jakarta artifacts for free (and this is what this vote does) to enable the CDI-SE/JSON-B case which starts to get pressure to be useable in jakarta namespace more than others.
 
Also your list of specs is not final. There is quite a few missing.

Not sure what you mean, I released the ones I announce for CDI SE + JSON-B stacks.
 

Not sure what would be the point to create another branch, we can keep specs/ still it is specs, no?

However, I'm -1 to change the artifact id to contain jakarta. Worse case we could do geronimo-<specname>-api to try to simplify the naming, avoid a 2-versions based convention and be less rude to end user + use a jpms friendly default name (even if we put an automatic name it avoids issues in some envs/ide).
 

If we would move anything I would try to use gitbox but can wait after the first release which is, IMHO, the most urgent.
 

and then do the release. 


LieGrue,
strub



Am 28.04.2020 um 07:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:

Hi everyone,

Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades.

Tags:
My key is still the same.

Please vote:

[ ] +1 release it
[ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause}

Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Mark Struberg
+1 because it allows us to more forward quickly.

Over the mid- and long-term we will need a separate branch/project I fear. 
There are already slight differences in e.g. EJB, and a few other specs.
But for now this is sufficient enough for people to start playing with. 
Just keep in mind that we will finally change artifact coordinates!

LieGrue,
strub


Am 28.04.2020 um 19:28 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:



Le mar. 28 avr. 2020 à 18:25, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
As explained in the other thread:

What is the difference between the various specs and their previous versions?
Afaict the only difference is jakartaEE, and we WILL  NOT MANAGE to do all via simple replacement. This is an absolute dead end. 

Mark, you keep saying that but each time I ask for a proof of that you never answer.
Most of the spec are 1-1 (it was the deal of jakartaee8 and some spec had been forbidden to replace/remove anything).
So please list the diff to let us fix that point if accurate.
 
There have been plenty of smallish methods removed in e.g. EJB and servlet. But also in other specs. So we WILL need to go full scale. And I also expect more changes to come for JakartaEE9.


Ok, think it is your method removal ;).
It is not that accurate for this vote, both jars are not in the scope of this vote.

I agree on EE9 point and here we will just create the jar from scratch as usual, with the right package directly, no ambiguity or discussion IMHO.
 

EE8 is FINISHED. There is NO change!

Does not mean we don't need to release the jar, please just have a look to the versions of this thread (which is <1/6  of all specs), spec were finished when we did 1.0 but we are at 1.4 for some jars so not a point for me.
 

All which happens is done in JakartaEE. And we have all the work done since a year?
I could do a release of those jars today.

If you can do all jakarta jars I'm happy to cancel this vote as mentionned already, my goal was just to get jakarta artifacts for free (and this is what this vote does) to enable the CDI-SE/JSON-B case which starts to get pressure to be useable in jakarta namespace more than others.
 
Also your list of specs is not final. There is quite a few missing.

Not sure what you mean, I released the ones I announce for CDI SE + JSON-B stacks.
 

Not sure what would be the point to create another branch, we can keep specs/ still it is specs, no?

However, I'm -1 to change the artifact id to contain jakarta. Worse case we could do geronimo-<specname>-api to try to simplify the naming, avoid a 2-versions based convention and be less rude to end user + use a jpms friendly default name (even if we put an automatic name it avoids issues in some envs/ide).
 

If we would move anything I would try to use gitbox but can wait after the first release which is, IMHO, the most urgent.
 

and then do the release. 


LieGrue,
strub



Am 28.04.2020 um 07:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:

Hi everyone,

Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades.

Tags:
My key is still the same.

Please vote:

[ ] +1 release it
[ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause}

Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Romain Manni-Bucau
My own +1

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 09:00, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
+1 because it allows us to more forward quickly.

Over the mid- and long-term we will need a separate branch/project I fear. 
There are already slight differences in e.g. EJB, and a few other specs.
But for now this is sufficient enough for people to start playing with. 
Just keep in mind that we will finally change artifact coordinates!

LieGrue,
strub


Am 28.04.2020 um 19:28 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:



Le mar. 28 avr. 2020 à 18:25, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
As explained in the other thread:

What is the difference between the various specs and their previous versions?
Afaict the only difference is jakartaEE, and we WILL  NOT MANAGE to do all via simple replacement. This is an absolute dead end. 

Mark, you keep saying that but each time I ask for a proof of that you never answer.
Most of the spec are 1-1 (it was the deal of jakartaee8 and some spec had been forbidden to replace/remove anything).
So please list the diff to let us fix that point if accurate.
 
There have been plenty of smallish methods removed in e.g. EJB and servlet. But also in other specs. So we WILL need to go full scale. And I also expect more changes to come for JakartaEE9.


Ok, think it is your method removal ;).
It is not that accurate for this vote, both jars are not in the scope of this vote.

I agree on EE9 point and here we will just create the jar from scratch as usual, with the right package directly, no ambiguity or discussion IMHO.
 

EE8 is FINISHED. There is NO change!

Does not mean we don't need to release the jar, please just have a look to the versions of this thread (which is <1/6  of all specs), spec were finished when we did 1.0 but we are at 1.4 for some jars so not a point for me.
 

All which happens is done in JakartaEE. And we have all the work done since a year?
I could do a release of those jars today.

If you can do all jakarta jars I'm happy to cancel this vote as mentionned already, my goal was just to get jakarta artifacts for free (and this is what this vote does) to enable the CDI-SE/JSON-B case which starts to get pressure to be useable in jakarta namespace more than others.
 
Also your list of specs is not final. There is quite a few missing.

Not sure what you mean, I released the ones I announce for CDI SE + JSON-B stacks.
 

Not sure what would be the point to create another branch, we can keep specs/ still it is specs, no?

However, I'm -1 to change the artifact id to contain jakarta. Worse case we could do geronimo-<specname>-api to try to simplify the naming, avoid a 2-versions based convention and be less rude to end user + use a jpms friendly default name (even if we put an automatic name it avoids issues in some envs/ide).
 

If we would move anything I would try to use gitbox but can wait after the first release which is, IMHO, the most urgent.
 

and then do the release. 


LieGrue,
strub



Am 28.04.2020 um 07:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:

Hi everyone,

Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades.

Tags:
My key is still the same.

Please vote:

[ ] +1 release it
[ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause}

Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Specs JCDI_2.0 1.2, Annotation_1.3 1.3, AtInject_1.0 1.2, Interceptor_1.2 1.2, JSONP_1.1 1.4, JSONB_1.0 1.3

Romain Manni-Bucau
Which makes 5 +1 (3 bindings) so this vote passes, thank you guys.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 09:01, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
My own +1

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 09:00, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
+1 because it allows us to more forward quickly.

Over the mid- and long-term we will need a separate branch/project I fear. 
There are already slight differences in e.g. EJB, and a few other specs.
But for now this is sufficient enough for people to start playing with. 
Just keep in mind that we will finally change artifact coordinates!

LieGrue,
strub


Am 28.04.2020 um 19:28 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:



Le mar. 28 avr. 2020 à 18:25, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
As explained in the other thread:

What is the difference between the various specs and their previous versions?
Afaict the only difference is jakartaEE, and we WILL  NOT MANAGE to do all via simple replacement. This is an absolute dead end. 

Mark, you keep saying that but each time I ask for a proof of that you never answer.
Most of the spec are 1-1 (it was the deal of jakartaee8 and some spec had been forbidden to replace/remove anything).
So please list the diff to let us fix that point if accurate.
 
There have been plenty of smallish methods removed in e.g. EJB and servlet. But also in other specs. So we WILL need to go full scale. And I also expect more changes to come for JakartaEE9.


Ok, think it is your method removal ;).
It is not that accurate for this vote, both jars are not in the scope of this vote.

I agree on EE9 point and here we will just create the jar from scratch as usual, with the right package directly, no ambiguity or discussion IMHO.
 

EE8 is FINISHED. There is NO change!

Does not mean we don't need to release the jar, please just have a look to the versions of this thread (which is <1/6  of all specs), spec were finished when we did 1.0 but we are at 1.4 for some jars so not a point for me.
 

All which happens is done in JakartaEE. And we have all the work done since a year?
I could do a release of those jars today.

If you can do all jakarta jars I'm happy to cancel this vote as mentionned already, my goal was just to get jakarta artifacts for free (and this is what this vote does) to enable the CDI-SE/JSON-B case which starts to get pressure to be useable in jakarta namespace more than others.
 
Also your list of specs is not final. There is quite a few missing.

Not sure what you mean, I released the ones I announce for CDI SE + JSON-B stacks.
 

Not sure what would be the point to create another branch, we can keep specs/ still it is specs, no?

However, I'm -1 to change the artifact id to contain jakarta. Worse case we could do geronimo-<specname>-api to try to simplify the naming, avoid a 2-versions based convention and be less rude to end user + use a jpms friendly default name (even if we put an automatic name it avoids issues in some envs/ide).
 

If we would move anything I would try to use gitbox but can wait after the first release which is, IMHO, the most urgent.
 

and then do the release. 


LieGrue,
strub



Am 28.04.2020 um 07:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:

Hi everyone,

Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades.

Tags:
My key is still the same.

Please vote:

[ ] +1 release it
[ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause}

Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book