[jdf-dev] [fedora-java] Chosing implementations for EE APIs and finalizing guidelines

Thu Jul 5 07:38:13 EDT 2012

I'm not really understanding who the target of these apis are? Will they be used by end users? Or only by people making rpms for fedora?

On 5 Jul 2012, at 08:14, Carlo de Wolf wrote:

> I'm not sure I really want to rehash this discussion.
> 
> The funny bit is JBoss EE artifacts are *not* used, because they are the cleanest and best. :-)
> 
> The other vendor API artifacts contain hacks tailored to specified servers, so it is going to be an interesting sight.
> 
> Okay, I'll give it one more shot.
> 
> Carlo
> 
> On 07/04/2012 12:29 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
>> The issue is that the APIs don't have an official implementation (only a reference implementation), nor are they designed to be "mixed and matched" like this. Sounds like a recipe for issues to me.
>> 
>> The right way to do this is to pick a particular vendors set, and cross your fingers that it will work, unless you can do it properly, and pull it the right API set for the right dependency.
>> 
>> BTW I don't really understand when this is used, and why it's an issue. Surely packages shouldn't be changing their declared dependencies, and each api impl doesn't share a namespace.
>> 
>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 01:50, Dan Allen wrote:
>> 
>>> I want to give all the "BOM heads" an FYI that the Fedora Java SIG is currently selecting artifacts to use to create the RPMs that correspond to the "official implementation" of each Java EE API [1]. Much like the JBoss specs, these RPM packages will become the official "headers" for any Java packages that rely on Java EE APIs. Here's an example: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/cdi-api
>>> 
>>> The JBoss community, several members in particular (Shelly, Pete, Karel, etc), have put in a lot of effort to groom and curate a set of Java EE API JARs. I'd hate to see that effort passed up in Fedora. Take note of the criteria that Stanislav mentions below to determine which artifact to use to create the API package for each spec (# of dependencies is a primary concern). If you'd like to participate in this decision, feel free to submit feedback in the #fedora-java IRC channel or the fedora-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org list (or contact your local representative, i.e., Marek or Carlo, hehehe).
>>> 
>>> If you need some motivation as to why you want to get involved, here's a preview of some of the artifacts that have been selected. Note that few are from the JBoss specs:
>>> 	• ...
>>> 	• javax.el - tomcat-el-2.2-api
>>> 	• javax.enterprise.inject - cdi-api
>>> 	• javax.inject - atinject
>>> 	• ..
>>> 	• javax.persistence - geronimo-jpa
>>> 	• javax.security.auth.message - geronimo-jaspic-spec
>>> 	• javax.servlet - tomcat-servlet-3.0-api
>>> 	• javax.servlet.jsp - glassfish-jsp/glassfish-jsp-api
>>> 	• javax.servlet.jsp.jstl - jakarta-taglibs-standard
>>> Now is the time to have this conversation. It's a "speak now or hold your peace" sort of thing.
>>> 
>>> -Dan
>>> 
>>> [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/private/java-devel/2012-June/004443.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:	[fedora-java] Chosing implementations for EE APIs and finalizing guidelines
>>> Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:16:57 +0200
>>> From:	Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com>
>>> To:	Fedora Java Development <java-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>>> 
>>> With new additions to packaging guidelines for EE APIs, we have to pick
>>> 1 implementation for each API.
>>> 
>>> I have made initial proposal for these APIs into the draft[1]. My
>>> criterias:
>>>  1. if JDK provides it, we are done. Packages should remove this
>>>     dependency from pom.xml files
>>> 
>>>  2. Prefer packages with smaller and simpler BR/R chains. Good example
>>>     being javax.servlet.jsp where I preferred glassfish-jsp over tomcat
>>>     or other implementations.
>>> 
>>>  3. Exception for 2nd point: if the project is proven to be difficult in
>>>     the past, override. Example being geronimo projects which were
>>>     overriden few times.
>>> 
>>> Even when we finalize this list, I don't expect it to be set in stone. I
>>> want it in the guidelines, but if situation arises where quick change is
>>> needed we can still do it. Longer-term, I'd like to package more simple
>>> independent implementations such as glassfish-jsp so we don't have
>>> dependency for example on tomcat in very basic dependency chain.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Now, I'd like to give everyone time to look at my picks and poke holes
>>> in them. If you don't like them...speak up. If you don't, you will not
>>> have my sympathies later. So I'll wait a week for comments. I plan to
>>> finalize new guidelines by the end of next week. Then call SIG meeting
>>> (finally) and vote on it before presenting it to the FPC.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate#EE_API_List
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Stanislav Ochotnicky
>>> <sochotnicky at redhat.com>
>>> 
>>> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
>>> 
>>> PGP: 7B087241
>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>> http://cz.redhat.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jdf-dev mailing list
>>> jdf-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
> 
> 