This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for compatibility reasons.
However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so I'm not sure that licensing issue still exists. -Val On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been > discussed. > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > > > > Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0? > > > > — > > Denis > > > > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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 < > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> 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 < > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > >> 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 < > > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> 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 < > > >>> dsetrak...@apache.org> > > >>>> 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. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
