[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [ejb-dev] [External] : Please giveyour estimate of when you will complete your tasks for Jakarta EE 9.1 TCKs...
|
On 3/19/21 2:43 PM, Ed Bratt wrote:
A
couple of points -- I hope these clarify --
1) there is no stand-alone TCK for Jakarta Enterprise Beans. If
Enterprise Beans TCK changes, the Jakarta EE Platform TCK (a.k.a.
CTS) is updated and a new version is required. This is true for
any Spec. that doesn't have a stand-alone TCK (Platform, Web
Profile, Enterprise Beans, Enterprise Web Services, Interceptors,
Managed Beans, Web Services Metadata).
2) if a TCK released in 9.0 passes both JDK 11 and JDK 8 without
change, it doesn't need to be re-released but a compatible
implementation must submit a compatibility certification issue
showing JDK 11.
3) Any TCK that must be rebuilt, even if there wasn't believed to
be a required change must be released again -- if for no other
reason, the SHA sums will no longer match.
(Clarifying 2 above) Since there was no Compatible Implementation
requirement for component implementations to pass JDK 11 with the
9.0 release, all specifications must verify their TCK against a
compatible implementation before we can claim those components
meet the requirement of working on JDK11. So, at the least,
Compatible Implementation issues for each spec. will be needed --
even if the TCK isn't updated.
One more reminder, compatible products must add Jakarta XML
Binding TCK results for platforms, when certifying with JDK 11 or
higher (along with their results for DI, CDI and Bean Validation).
Good point, issue
678 is for updating the Jakarta EE Platform TCK user guide
to also require passing the Jakarta
XML Binding TCK when running the TCKs on JDK 11 or higher.
Scott
-- Ed
On 3/19/2021 10:59 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Mar 19, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Lukas
Jungmann <lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/19/21, 6:22 PM, "jakartaee-platform-dev on behalf of
David Blevins" <jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
on behalf of dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2021, at 9:26 AM, Werner
Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx> wrote:
but David first said just release the 9.0 content unchanged
with a new number and then mentioned spec XYZ indeed
requires new Tests.
You interpreted that differently than what I intended to
communicate.
If a scenario existed where there was no TCK changes a
pragmatic way to handle that would be to simply upload the TCK
again with an updated file version. The statement was
intended to get ahead of complaints about extra "work" in
scenarios were it could be avoided.
this solution may introduce a version number mismatch between
the file name and included User Guide in some cases, may not
be a big deal but anyway... Also not sure if TCK itself is
printing out its exact version somewhere, that could be
another source of confusion going forward
Valid concern. I wouldn't actually recommend people just upload
the same binary with a different version, I'd personally prefer
to do an actual release. But if we were in a situation where a
spec team was resisting due to the work involved, the "upload it
again" technique would be the compromise I'd offer.
-David
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!OCrZkkwqF9Yb3cS_NF92WnlC5x97KY353QbvK4ePUcIdsjA5oPEXmen2-v0YbN4$
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev