Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom


remember that we are the Eclipse Foundation:

* Possibly Sonatype is willing to reduce some restrictions for the EF. At least asking them is free.

* At EF have our own infrastructure running, so we could set up a service to push into Maven Central with less restrictions. The EF webmaster could answer this.

* Whether or not a service utilized by the EF has to be FREE is up to the EF to decide. We should not assume that EE4J has a budget of zero Dollars.

These options have to be discussed by the EF, not by the PMC, not Oracle internally. The decision whether we (the EF) do that, is up to the EF.

BTW, what JAX-RS MUST do or not will be decided solely by the JAX-RS committers. So THIS mailing list is the wrong place to discuss what JAX-RS MUST or COULD or SHOULD do. I understand your answers as proposals, but they are better addressed in the JAX-RS developers mailing list. Maybe you like to open a PR for that so ALL JAX-RS committers and contributors can comment (least of them are subscribed to THIS mailing list)?

Besides that, I think the solution is to use a BOM instead of a parent POM, but this certainly needs more checks. If I were part of that parent POM project I would work on that. Unfortunately I was not invited upfront.


-----Original Message-----
From: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukas Jungmann
Sent: Freitag, 11. Mai 2018 22:14
To: Dmitry Kornilov; EE4J PMC Discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom


short answer as given by google to at least half of questions:

longer answer is inline

On 5/11/18 8:51 PM, Dmitry Kornilov wrote:
> (Adding Lukas)
> Hi Markus,
> Thanks for your feedback. See my answers inline.
>> On 11 May 2018, at 20:12, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> Dmitry,
>> first of all, thanks for publishing the parent pom! I think this can 
>> become a valueable tool! :-) Second, I have some negative feedback, 
>> too. I tried to apply the parent pom to JAX-RS API and it makes more 
>> work to integrate it than it provides value. The reason is that this 
>> is not a pure parent pom, but it more looks like the head of a 
>> multi-module project where it is expected that all modules look and 
>> work the same. This is not the case of EE4J. All projects are 
>> independent, and so the following issues are:
>> - Lukas is mentioned as a programmer in all projects now and it 
>> cannot be overridden by subprojects. This is a no-go as for example 
>> at JAX-RS we do not mention ANY developers in the POM, so the result 
>> now is that in JAX-RS he is listed as the SOLE programmer. That is a 
>> showstopper for using the parent POM at least in JAX-RS.
> The original version didn’t have developers section. We added it there 
> because we couldn’t close the staging repository. This error was reported:
> Invalid POM: /org/eclipse/ee4j/project/1.0/project-1.0.pom: Developer 
> information missing
> I suppose it will happen when you try to deploy your pom as well. The 
> workaround is to add developers section.

It is actually not a workaround but the requirement. Since OSSRH is used for deployments to Maven Central by eclipse fnd, Sonatype's rules MUST be followed:

developer section is mandatory. Alternative approach - setup own mirror for deployment to Maven Central and use that, find someone else offering deployments to Maven Central for free or ask Sonatype to remove this enforcement.

I personally think that community and/or some list should be mentioned here in case of the parent pom, not me.

Possibility of not having developers section in the pom for JAX-RS project is a showstopper for using OSSRH for deployments to Maven Central.

> I must admit that <> parent pom didn’t have it. 
> If you know a way how to deploy a project to Maven Central bypassing 
> this check, let me know.
>> - The description given in the parent pom is used in all subprojects 
>> unless these explicitly overide the <description> that. At JAX-RS we 
>> do not have a description, so we either need to add one or at least 
>> add an empty <description/> element. That's not nice as it implies 
>> work. Nobody wants to have the EE4J description as the default for 
>> the subproject.
> I understand what you mean, but think that it’s a good practice to 
> have description section in your pom. <> 
> parent pom we inspired with does have description section.

description section is mandatory. Alternative approach - setup own mirror for deployment to Maven Central and use that, find someone else offering deployments to Maven Central for free or ask Sonatype to remove this enforcement.

so in short - if JAX-RS wants to use OSSRH for deployment to Maven Central then it MUST have description section (= read as "some work may be needed") else JAX-RS MUST find different way for deployments to Maven Central.

>> - The inception year is defaulted by 2018 now. This is problematic as 
>> this element is used by some maven plugins, e. g. to set the 
>> copyright year. JAX-RS does not have this element in its POM, so 
>> Maven did not know our inception. Now it is overriden by 2018, which 
>> simply is wrong. Hence, this is a source of failure, even with a legal aspect.
>> If JAX-RS adopts the parent pom, we MUST override the inception year 
>> now. BTW, I assume ALL existing projects MUST do that, so what is 
>> this default good for at all?
> EE4J project inception year is 2018, isn’t it?
> I don’t have an opinion about it. Passing it to Lukas. We can remove 
> it if it’s not needed. I would like to hear other committers opinion.

This one is not mandatory. On the other hand majority (if not all) projects I've had a chance to work on/commit to (not only those APIs/RIs under JavaEE/JakartaEE) in the past have had inception year in its pom and I do consider having this as a good habit. I understand that it takes time to add it and when it is missing it is really low-low-low priority "bug", so it is probably not even worth to file an issue for this but from my personal point of view this is exactly one of those little things where creating and submitting a PR for adding this takes much less time than arguing why (not) to add it with typical outcome of few mins of work vs. hours of discussions

>> + The sole benefit JAX-RS actually found is that we get rid of our 
>> + own
>> <licences> and <organization> elements (just a few lines actually), 
>> and the preconfigured Sonatype repos.
>> To sum up: I do not see that the benefit outweighs the drawbacks from 
>> the view of the JAX-RS API project. Nevertheless, it is not my 
>> decision, so I will open a PR tomorrow and let the contributors vote.

Keep in mind that from my point of view it can be possibly accepted if and only if it follows


> Sorry to hear that. Just wondering, if you add consistency between all 
> EE4J projects to the positive side, will it overweight your drawbacks?
>> My first advice to the PMC would be to immediately step up from 1.0 
>> to 1.1-SNAPSHOT, open a PR for 1.1, and let the project committers 
>> discuss the proposal on Github FIRST before publishing a parent POM 
>> to Maven Central. My second advice to the PMC would be to get rid of 
>> <developers>, <description>, <inceptionYear> and all other 
>> non-essential stuff. Start with the absolute minimal information that 
>> is really really really the same for all projects and then let the 
>> project committers propose additions in the form of POM profiles and 
>> / or optional plugins (aka dependencyManagement).
> There were PRs and even some discussions (not much really) around it. 
> See here: 
> <>
> I am not pretending that this is a final-final version. We released it 
> to get feedback from EE4J projects like JAX-RS. We will collect 
> improvement requests and deploy a new version if needed.
> Cheers,
> Dmitry
>> *From:*ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of*Dmitry Kornilov 
>> *Sent:*Freitag, 11. Mai 2018 14:40 *To:*EE4J PMC Discussions 
>> *Subject:*[ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom Hi, We managed to deploy the 
>> first version of EE4J parent pom. See here:
>> <|ga|1|org.eclipse.ee4j>
>> We will try to use it in some projects. When it works smoothly I’ll 
>> write a wiki page with instructions and PMC should oficially 
>> recommend it to use in all EE4J projects.
>> Thanks,
>> Dmitry
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-pmc mailing list
>> ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> To change your 
>> delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this 
>> list, visit
ee4j-pmc mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top