All fair points, but
a.) I don't want to host org.eclipse sources at Apache
b.) We can just ship a PR to add those features over there
c.) point 4 should not be the case.
So I'd vote -1
> Am 04.06.2018 um 09:09 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi guys,
> we have 4 MP implementations I think (failsafe, config, jwt-auth and opentracing) and 2 of them reused eclipse api jar and 2 uses a geronimo flavor.
> I'd like us to discuss which flavor we want to align all of them.
> The fact to reuse the API reduces the code we hosts which is not bad but has these drawbacks:
> 1. when a loader is involved we can't enhance it for our consumers (like aries) to be compatible with other mecanism than plain java standalone (+ standard java(ee) mecanism like lib/<spec>.properties which is sometimes used in users land)
> 2. geronimo always provided a good entry point to be OSGi friendly. I saw that some MP@eclipse jar provided some OSGi work but they rely on a dependency we don't want in all not OSGi apps + they don't embrace what our consumers do (spifly+javacontract we will merge soon)
> 3. it is very slow to have an eclipse release (opentracing and jwt auth were a pain and even led to use tck in snapshot to launch the release after having waited weeks)
> 4. if there is some default hardcoded (dont think it is the case yet but it can likely be appended in 1 to be consistent with the javaee/jakartaee behavior) then we will want to put our default and not the RI one
> At the end the cost to have the spec jar is almost nothing to not say really nothing so I'm in favor of ensuring we always host it.
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book