Hi Pete, By missing, do you mean APIs jars that come from thirdparty? I believe our BOM has all the APIs, there is just a split between the jars built as part of the JBoss specs project vs. built by thirdparties.

You can see the split in the specs BOM here: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/jboss/spec/jboss-javaee-6.0/3.0.1.Final... I'm not sure if we'll have time to re-create the remaining thirdparty ones, it's pretty low priority. What's the problem that they cause currently?

On 07/09/2012 05:17 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > Hey Shelly, Paul, > > I know we are missing a few of these, and for consistency/one less FAQ, it would be nice to have a complete set. > > WDYT? Do you guys have time to "finish this off" over the next month or two? > > Pete >

Hi Pete, By missing, do you mean APIs jars that come from thirdparty? I believe our BOM has all the APIs, there is just a split between the jars built as part of the JBoss specs project vs. built by thirdparties. You can see the split in the specs BOM here: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/jboss/spec/jboss-javaee-6.0/3.0.1.Final... I'm not sure if we'll have time to re-create the remaining thirdparty ones, it's pretty low priority. What's the problem that they cause currently? On 07/09/2012 05:17 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > Hey Shelly, Paul, > > I know we are missing a few of these, and for consistency/one less FAQ, it would be nice to have a complete set. > > WDYT? Do you guys have time to "finish this off" over the next month or two? > > Pete > _______________________________________________ jdf-dev mailing list jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev

At this point I guess we just have to decide how much resources we want to spend on the JBoss specs project. We found some questionable licensing issues earlier this year which caused us to change the licenses of the specs project. So one of the priorities for the JBoss specs project is to do a more thorough code and license review. And it may be necessary to re-write some of the projects from scratch if we want to own the copyright. Another option would be for us to move away from the JBoss specs project and work more closely with the Geronimo team, eventually just using their set of specs in JBoss AS. Possibly with our own forked builds of their jars in case we need to fix something quickly. With either of these options we also have the issue of some JBoss projects which control their own spec APIs and would likely not give up this control. I'm thinking of Hibernate with JPA and Resteasy with JAX-RS. On 07/23/2012 08:23 AM, Jason Porter wrote: > There's no problem AFAIK, however, the Fedora Java guys are looking to package things up in Fedora (and that will probably make its way to RHEL) and they're much better off to use all jars from a single source. Right now that single source looks to be Geromino instead of JBoss. > > ----- Paul Gier <pgier(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> Hi Pete, >> >> By missing, do you mean APIs jars that come from thirdparty? I believe >> our BOM has all the APIs, there is just a split between the jars built >> as part of the JBoss specs project vs. built by thirdparties. >> >> You can see the split in the specs BOM here: >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/jboss/spec/jboss-javaee-6.0/3.0.1.Final... >> >> I'm not sure if we'll have time to re-create the remaining thirdparty >> ones, it's pretty low priority. What's the problem that they cause >> currently? >> >> On 07/09/2012 05:17 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >>> Hey Shelly, Paul, >>> >>> I know we are missing a few of these, and for consistency/one less FAQ, it would be nice to have a complete set. >>> >>> WDYT? Do you guys have time to "finish this off" over the next month or two? >>> >>> Pete >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jdf-dev mailing list >> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >