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 <dsetrak...@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 <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Le 30 mars 2016 01:45, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <dsetrak...@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 >> > <rmannibu...@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 <johndam...@apache.org>: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> dsetrak...@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 >> >> >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Le 28 mars 2016 10:15, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <dsetrak...@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 < >> johndam...@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 >> >> >>> >> <dsetrak...@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 < >> >> >>> rmannibu...@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" < >> dsetrak...@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 < >> >> >>> rmannibu...@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 >> >> >>> >>>> >> <dsetrak...@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 < >> >> >>> >>>> >> dsetrak...@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 >> >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>>> > >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >
