Re: [cu-dev] Collecting and tracking Concurrency 3.0 TCK scenarios and a

["Nathan Rauh" <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,

Thanks - I added items to the list for signature tests for all of the new 
classes that we added and the 3 existing classes to which we added new 
methods.
I believe the porting work that is currently being done will preserve the 
ability to run with Servlet, EJB and JSP as it did in the platform repo.




From:   "Scott Marlow" <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:     "cu developer discussions" <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Nathan Rauh" 
<nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   11/05/2021 01:27 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [cu-dev] Collecting and tracking 
Concurrency 3.0 TCK scenarios and a question on EJB



On 11/5/21 12:20 PM, Nathan Rauh wrote: I opened the following issue to 
collect and track TCK tests that need to be added for Concurrency 3.0, 
starting it out with some obvious ones based on items that have already 
gone in: ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

On 11/5/21 12:20 PM, Nathan Rauh wrote:
I opened the following issue to collect and track TCK tests that need to 
be added for Concurrency 3.0, starting it out with some obvious ones based 
on items that have already gone in:
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/concurrency-api/issues/154

If anyone has a better way of doing this, please go ahead.  I decided to 
open it because I'm wondering if all the necessary TCK work will be 
achievable within the 4Q timeframe for finalizing a 3.0 spec release for 
Jakarta EE 10.  
Currently, the Platform TCK validates Concurrency on EJB, Servlet, JSP.  
If the new Concurrency SPEC TCK also test on EJB, Servlet, JSP, then the 
Platform TCK Concurrency tests will not be needed (e.g. could be 
removed).  But if the Concurrency SPEC TCK doesn't test on EJB, Servlet, 
JSP, then the Platform TCK Concurrency tests will be needed.
The Concurrency SPEC TCK will also need to validate that the Concurrency 
SPEC API signatures are correct for the implementation being tested.
Also, please feel free to edit the list in the issue description to add 
scenarios or just reply to the issue or this email for those who don't 
have edit permission, and someone who does can get them added.

I'm also wondering about TCK testing of the resource definitions 
deployment descriptor entries.  Does the Concurrency spec TCK need to 
cover those or are those done at another level?  The schemas that are 
currently showing for Jakarta EE 10 
https://jakarta.ee/xml/ns/jakartaee/#10don't yet reflect the updates that 
we put in earlier this year.
The more of the Concurrency API that we test, the better but you could 
also add more TCK tests for the next Concurrency minor/major release.  
Once, Concurrency 3.0 has been released, no more additional Concurrency 
3.0 TCK tests may be added (adding tests would invalidate any 
implementations that have passed the final Concurrency 3.0 TCK).


Also, a question on @Asynchronous and EJBs which came up during an 
internal review of the specification updates made thus far by the 
organization that I work under.  It was brought up that EJBs that are CDI 
managed beans ought to be able to use the new @Asynchronous annotation as 
long as they aren't also annotated with the EJB @Asynchronous annotation. 
 This would make for a more consistent statement on the support for 
@Asynchronous with CDI managed beans and would allow EJBs to start 
switching over to the new annotation.  It would likely incur some 
complexity in addressing how our @Asynchronous interacts with other 
aspects of EJB.  Would it be worth trying to change this in the 3.0 
release?
IMO, sounds like a good discussion for ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx just to get 
more feedback from others.





_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev