[VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Mark Struberg
Hi!

I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).

The staging repo is:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/

The source release and binary is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/

Please VOTE:

[+1] yeah, let's ship it!
[+0] meh, don't care
[-1] nope, because ${showstopper}

The VOTE is open for 72h

Here is my own +1

txs and LieGrue,
strub

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

jlmonteiro
Awesome

+1

Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 11:16, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).

The staging repo is:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/

The source release and binary is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/

Please VOTE:

[+1] yeah, let's ship it!
[+0] meh, don't care
[-1] nope, because ${showstopper}

The VOTE is open for 72h

Here is my own +1

txs and LieGrue,
strub

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Reinhard Sandtner-2
+1 (nonbinding)

Am 27.06.2017 um 11:17 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:

Awesome

+1

Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 11:16, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).

The staging repo is:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/

The source release and binary is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/

Please VOTE:

[+1] yeah, let's ship it!
[+0] meh, don't care
[-1] nope, because ${showstopper}

The VOTE is open for 72h

Here is my own +1

txs and LieGrue,
strub


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Romain Manni-Bucau
+1


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory

2017-06-27 12:23 GMT+02:00 Reinhard Sandtner <[hidden email]>:
+1 (nonbinding)

Am 27.06.2017 um 11:17 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:

Awesome

+1

Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 11:16, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).

The staging repo is:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/

The source release and binary is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/

Please VOTE:

[+1] yeah, let's ship it!
[+0] meh, don't care
[-1] nope, because ${showstopper}

The VOTE is open for 72h

Here is my own +1

txs and LieGrue,
strub



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

John D. Ament
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
+1 and especially happy to not see alpha in the version #!

On Jun 27, 2017 5:16 AM, "Mark Struberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi!

I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).

The staging repo is:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/

The source release and binary is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/

Please VOTE:

[+1] yeah, let's ship it!
[+0] meh, don't care
[-1] nope, because ${showstopper}

The VOTE is open for 72h

Here is my own +1

txs and LieGrue,
strub

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Guillaume Nodet-5
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
-0

It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.

2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
Hi!

I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).

The staging repo is:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/

The source release and binary is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/

Please VOTE:

[+1] yeah, let's ship it!
[+0] meh, don't care
[-1] nope, because ${showstopper}

The VOTE is open for 72h

Here is my own +1

txs and LieGrue,
strub




--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Mark Struberg
Hi Guillaume!

I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?

Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
>
> -0
>
> It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
>
> 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
>
> The staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
>
> The source release and binary is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
>
> Please VOTE:
>
> [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> [+0] meh, don't care
> [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h
>
> Here is my own +1
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

John D. Ament
I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.



I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.

John

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Guillaume!

I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?

Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
>
> -0
>
> It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
>
> 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
>
> The staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
>
> The source release and binary is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
>
> Please VOTE:
>
> [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> [+0] meh, don't care
> [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h
>
> Here is my own +1
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Guillaume Nodet-5
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg


2017-06-27 13:38 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
Hi Guillaume!

I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?

Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?

Definitely, that's why I haven't voted -1 ;-)
I think there are enough votes already, but if not, I can change it to +1.

What I meant, is that I would rather have left the OSGi metadata out to not lead people into thinking that it can actually be used in OSGi.


LieGrue,
strub

> Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
>
> -0
>
> It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
>
> 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
>
> The staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
>
> The source release and binary is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
>
> Please VOTE:
>
> [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> [+0] meh, don't care
> [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h
>
> Here is my own +1
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>




--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Romain Manni-Bucau
In reply to this post by John D. Ament
well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too.

I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory

2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.



I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.

John


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Guillaume!

I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?

Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
>
> -0
>
> It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
>
> 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
>
> The staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
>
> The source release and binary is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
>
> Please VOTE:
>
> [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> [+0] meh, don't care
> [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h
>
> Here is my own +1
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Mark Struberg
+1

We should also fix the point John raised.
John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a ticket and commit it? :D

@Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;)


That reminds we that the osgi module in OWB surely also needs some proper review.
It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since.
So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.) works at all these days ;)

txs and LieGrue,
strub

> Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too.
>
> I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>
> 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
> I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/SeContainerInitializer.java#L47
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/CDI.java#L54
>
> I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Guillaume!
>
> I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
> I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
> Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?
>
> Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
> I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
> But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > -0
> >
> > It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
> >
> > 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
> >
> > The staging repo is:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
> >
> > The source release and binary is here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
> >
> > Please VOTE:
> >
> > [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> > [+0] meh, don't care
> > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h
> >
> > Here is my own +1
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Guillaume Nodet-5
Changing my vote to +1.

And feel free to ping me when preparing a release so that I can have a look at the OSGi stuff.

2017-06-27 14:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
+1

We should also fix the point John raised.
John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a ticket and commit it? :D

@Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;)


That reminds we that the osgi module in OWB surely also needs some proper review.
It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since.
So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.) works at all these days ;)

txs and LieGrue,
strub

> Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too.
>
> I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>
> 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
> I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/SeContainerInitializer.java#L47
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/CDI.java#L54
>
> I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Guillaume!
>
> I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
> I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
> Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?
>
> Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
> I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
> But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > -0
> >
> > It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
> >
> > 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
> >
> > The staging repo is:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
> >
> > The source release and binary is here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
> >
> > Please VOTE:
> >
> > [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> > [+0] meh, don't care
> > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h
> >
> > Here is my own +1
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>
>




--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Mark Struberg
txs and ping :D

Nah, seriously, we are in the process of releasing OWB-2.0 _very_ soon.
OWB already passes the CDI 2.0 TCK!

So it would be really great if you could take a look and help us with OSGi support!
It would be awesome if OWB would 'just work' in Karaf and other ASF OSGi projects!

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 27.06.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
>
> Changing my vote to +1.
>
> And feel free to ping me when preparing a release so that I can have a look at the OSGi stuff.
>
> 2017-06-27 14:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> +1
>
> We should also fix the point John raised.
> John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a ticket and commit it? :D
>
> @Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;)
>
>
> That reminds we that the osgi module in OWB surely also needs some proper review.
> It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since.
> So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.) works at all these days ;)
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too.
> >
> > I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> >
> > 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
> > I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/SeContainerInitializer.java#L47
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/CDI.java#L54
> >
> > I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Guillaume!
> >
> > I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
> > I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
> > Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?
> >
> > Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
> > I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
> > But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > -0
> > >
> > > It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
> > >
> > > 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> > > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
> > >
> > > The staging repo is:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
> > >
> > > The source release and binary is here:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
> > >
> > > Please VOTE:
> > >
> > > [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> > > [+0] meh, don't care
> > > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
> > >
> > > The VOTE is open for 72h
> > >
> > > Here is my own +1
> > >
> > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------------
> > > Guillaume Nodet
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

jlmonteiro
I agree. If you could fixing the OSGi issues that'd be great.

In addition to OWB, Meecrowave could also benefit from it.
BTW, if we could check and validate the transaction spec, that'd be fantastic.


Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 14:38, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
txs and ping :D

Nah, seriously, we are in the process of releasing OWB-2.0 _very_ soon.
OWB already passes the CDI 2.0 TCK!

So it would be really great if you could take a look and help us with OSGi support!
It would be awesome if OWB would 'just work' in Karaf and other ASF OSGi projects!

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 27.06.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
>
> Changing my vote to +1.
>
> And feel free to ping me when preparing a release so that I can have a look at the OSGi stuff.
>
> 2017-06-27 14:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> +1
>
> We should also fix the point John raised.
> John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a ticket and commit it? :D
>
> @Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;)
>
>
> That reminds we that the osgi module in OWB surely also needs some proper review.
> It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since.
> So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.) works at all these days ;)
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too.
> >
> > I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> >
> > 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
> > I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/SeContainerInitializer.java#L47
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/CDI.java#L54
> >
> > I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Guillaume!
> >
> > I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
> > I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
> > Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?
> >
> > Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
> > I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
> > But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > -0
> > >
> > > It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
> > >
> > > 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> > > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
> > >
> > > The staging repo is:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
> > >
> > > The source release and binary is here:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
> > >
> > > Please VOTE:
> > >
> > > [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> > > [+0] meh, don't care
> > > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
> > >
> > > The VOTE is open for 72h
> > >
> > > Here is my own +1
> > >
> > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------------
> > > Guillaume Nodet
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Mark Struberg
I think there was a new spec paper wording for transaction in EE8.
But I have no information whether there also was any API change?

Do you as EJB EG member have more information on that?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 27.06.2017 um 14:55 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
>
> I agree. If you could fixing the OSGi issues that'd be great.
>
> In addition to OWB, Meecrowave could also benefit from it.
> BTW, if we could check and validate the transaction spec, that'd be fantastic.
>
>
> Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 14:38, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> txs and ping :D
>
> Nah, seriously, we are in the process of releasing OWB-2.0 _very_ soon.
> OWB already passes the CDI 2.0 TCK!
>
> So it would be really great if you could take a look and help us with OSGi support!
> It would be awesome if OWB would 'just work' in Karaf and other ASF OSGi projects!
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Changing my vote to +1.
> >
> > And feel free to ping me when preparing a release so that I can have a look at the OSGi stuff.
> >
> > 2017-06-27 14:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > +1
> >
> > We should also fix the point John raised.
> > John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a ticket and commit it? :D
> >
> > @Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;)
> >
> >
> > That reminds we that the osgi module in OWB surely also needs some proper review.
> > It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since.
> > So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.) works at all these days ;)
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too.
> > >
> > > I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> > >
> > > 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
> > > I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/SeContainerInitializer.java#L47
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/CDI.java#L54
> > >
> > > I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi Guillaume!
> > >
> > > I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
> > > I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
> > > Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?
> > >
> > > Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
> > > I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
> > > But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > > > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > -0
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> > > > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
> > > >
> > > > The staging repo is:
> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
> > > >
> > > > The source release and binary is here:
> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
> > > >
> > > > Please VOTE:
> > > >
> > > > [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> > > > [+0] meh, don't care
> > > > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
> > > >
> > > > The VOTE is open for 72h
> > > >
> > > > Here is my own +1
> > > >
> > > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > > strub
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

jlmonteiro
On the EJB EC side of things I haven't heard anything in that regard

Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 14:59, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I think there was a new spec paper wording for transaction in EE8.
But I have no information whether there also was any API change?

Do you as EJB EG member have more information on that?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 27.06.2017 um 14:55 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
>
> I agree. If you could fixing the OSGi issues that'd be great.
>
> In addition to OWB, Meecrowave could also benefit from it.
> BTW, if we could check and validate the transaction spec, that'd be fantastic.
>
>
> Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 14:38, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> txs and ping :D
>
> Nah, seriously, we are in the process of releasing OWB-2.0 _very_ soon.
> OWB already passes the CDI 2.0 TCK!
>
> So it would be really great if you could take a look and help us with OSGi support!
> It would be awesome if OWB would 'just work' in Karaf and other ASF OSGi projects!
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Changing my vote to +1.
> >
> > And feel free to ping me when preparing a release so that I can have a look at the OSGi stuff.
> >
> > 2017-06-27 14:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > +1
> >
> > We should also fix the point John raised.
> > John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a ticket and commit it? :D
> >
> > @Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;)
> >
> >
> > That reminds we that the osgi module in OWB surely also needs some proper review.
> > It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since.
> > So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.) works at all these days ;)
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too.
> > >
> > > I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> > >
> > > 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
> > > I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/SeContainerInitializer.java#L47
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/CDI.java#L54
> > >
> > > I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi Guillaume!
> > >
> > > I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
> > > I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
> > > Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?
> > >
> > > Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
> > > I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
> > > But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > > > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > -0
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> > > > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
> > > >
> > > > The staging repo is:
> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
> > > >
> > > > The source release and binary is here:
> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
> > > >
> > > > Please VOTE:
> > > >
> > > > [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> > > > [+0] meh, don't care
> > > > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
> > > >
> > > > The VOTE is open for 72h
> > > >
> > > > Here is my own +1
> > > >
> > > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > > strub
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Guillaume Nodet-5
In reply to this post by jlmonteiro
Well, I'm willing to fix some OSGi issues... and I was thinking about Geronimo, not all OSGi related issues in the world ;-)

In particular, ensuring OWB works in OSGi is a big task, for which I don't have enough time unfortunately...  I did some work some time ago on pax-cdi RC2, but the OSGi EEG is going a simplistic way for the CDI/OSGi integration (well, simplistic in terms of OSGi capabilities) and the RI is developped at Aries, though I think it's currently using Weld.

Anyway, I'll have a closer look this very bundle soon.  If you have pointers to other individual jars you want me to look at, let me know.

2017-06-27 14:55 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
I agree. If you could fixing the OSGi issues that'd be great.

In addition to OWB, Meecrowave could also benefit from it.
BTW, if we could check and validate the transaction spec, that'd be fantastic.


Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 14:38, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
txs and ping :D

Nah, seriously, we are in the process of releasing OWB-2.0 _very_ soon.
OWB already passes the CDI 2.0 TCK!

So it would be really great if you could take a look and help us with OSGi support!
It would be awesome if OWB would 'just work' in Karaf and other ASF OSGi projects!

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 27.06.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
>
> Changing my vote to +1.
>
> And feel free to ping me when preparing a release so that I can have a look at the OSGi stuff.
>
> 2017-06-27 14:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> +1
>
> We should also fix the point John raised.
> John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a ticket and commit it? :D
>
> @Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;)
>
>
> That reminds we that the osgi module in OWB surely also needs some proper review.
> It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since.
> So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.) works at all these days ;)
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too.
> >
> > I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> >
> > 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
> > I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/SeContainerInitializer.java#L47
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/CDI.java#L54
> >
> > I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on TCCL.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Guillaume!
> >
> > I totally agree, but does this really block this release?
> > I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions.
> > Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough?
> >
> > Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
> > I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
> > But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again imo, isn't?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > -0
> > >
> > > It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support.  The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho.
> > >
> > > 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> > > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
> > >
> > > The staging repo is:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
> > >
> > > The source release and binary is here:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
> > >
> > > Please VOTE:
> > >
> > > [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> > > [+0] meh, don't care
> > > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
> > >
> > > The VOTE is open for 72h
> > >
> > > Here is my own +1
> > >
> > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------------
> > > Guillaume Nodet
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>




--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Mark Struberg
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!

The VOTE did pass with the following:

+1: Jean-Louis Monteiro (nb), Reinhard Sandtner (nb), Romain Manni-Bucau, John Ament (nb), Guillaume Nodet, Mark Struberg

No -1 nor 0 (Guillaume changed his vote from 0 to +1).

There was also an important discussion regarding OSGi improvements which we should tackle across various other specs as well.

I'll gonna continue with the release steps.

txs 2 all who voted!

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 27.06.2017 um 11:16 schrieb Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in version 1.0
> This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison passed).
>
> The staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
>
> The source release and binary is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
>
> Please VOTE:
>
> [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> [+0] meh, don't care
> [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h
>
> Here is my own +1
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>

Loading...