We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the next release.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < [email protected]> wrote: > Guys, > > I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several months > ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and 1.0.0 still > has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing to the > new one though). > > Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to Geronimo? > > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > > -Val > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real > > difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever > > geronimo project updates the JAR. > > > > D. > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going to > > > wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the > JSR107? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > > specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > > > > > > We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as > > it > > > is > > > > licensed under Apache 2.0. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > >
