Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] Jakarta Transaction signatures (maybe others)

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,
> We
should ensure that we have signature files for se8/se11 signature files
for each Jakarta EE 9 SPEC API.
Yes, please.


>  For signature files that are
not used, do we need to keep those or can we delete them?
They could be deleted. Let's just ensure
that they are no longer required before we delete them.


> I am wondering if it would help
to have an external list somewhere of all the Jakarta EE 9 SPEC API classes,
so that one could (via inspection by humans initially) validate that we
have the correct signatures in the Platform TCK?  If yes, I propose
a simple script that generates an asciidoc/text file containing all of
the said EE 9 classes, that could be merged to a central repo.  This
generated document could be considered the truth of exactly which classes
in EE 9 applications should use the jakarta package as well.  If we
already have this, please mention the link, so we can reference it in future
conversations. :) 

Not sure what this would provide. We
are already creating the Platform and Web Profile API jar files, which
should represent all of the Jakarta EE 9 Spec API classes.  These
are created via the jakartaee-api repository:
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-api
And, the generated jar files are placed
in Maven central, once they are released.


> Perhaps we could also have a script
that validates that the EE 9 Platform TCK signature files do represent
all of the classes identified by the external list of EE 9 classes (the
script could generate that list as well, instead of reading the list from
the external asciidoc file).

Isn't that the point of the TCK and CI
-- to validate both the tests and the generated artifacts (APIs and/or
CI)?

Maybe I'm missing the point of your question...


---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:
       Scott
Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       jakartaee-tck
developer discussions <jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       06/11/2020
08:23
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] Jakarta Transaction signatures (maybe    
   others)
Sent
by:        jakartaee-tck-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:19 AM Tom Jenkinson
<tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I might have misinterpreted https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-spec-project-leads/msg00413.html- perhaps we want both the Jakarta EE 8 and Jakarta EE 9 signatures on
master? If so, we might need to keep javax.transaction.sig_1.3_se8 (if
that was indeed the Jakarta EE 8 version). However, I would think that
removing javax.transaction.sig_1.2_se8 at least would be consistent with
that message (if it can be).

We should ensure that we have signature
files for se8/se11 signature files for each Jakarta EE 9 SPEC API. 

For signature files that are not used,
do we need to keep those or can we delete them?

I am wondering if it would help to have
an external list somewhere of all the Jakarta EE 9 SPEC API classes, so
that one could (via inspection by humans initially) validate that we have
the correct signatures in the Platform TCK?  If yes, I propose a simple
script that generates an asciidoc/text file containing all of the said
EE 9 classes, that could be merged to a central repo.  This generated
document could be considered the truth of exactly which classes in EE 9
applications should use the jakarta package as well.  If we already
have this, please mention the link, so we can reference it in future conversations.
:) 

Perhaps we could also have a script that
validates that the EE 9 Platform TCK signature files do represent all of
the classes identified by the external list of EE 9 classes (the script
could generate that list as well, instead of reading the list from the
external asciidoc file).
 
Hope this helps,
Scott

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 19:41, Kevin Sutter
<sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
As a reminder,
all APIs need to be at the Java SE 8 source and binary levels.  The
implementations need to support Java SE 11, but the APIs still need to
be at the Java SE 8 level.  I'm not exactly clear on how these signature
files get processed for the TCK, but when I see items proposed to be deleted
related to Java SE 8 and APIs, it makes me nervous...  Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx    Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:        Tom
Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Alwin
Joseph <alwin.joseph@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:        jakartaee-tck
developer discussions <jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        06/10/2020
11:44
Subject:        [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] Jakarta Transaction signatures (maybe    
   others)
Sent by:        jakartaee-tck-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

I whatever you provided as [1] was not included in your message?

But Glassfish master seems to be using 2.0.0-RC2: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/glassfish/blob/master/appserver/pom.xml#L130.
That version you can find in staging: https://jakarta.oss.sonatype.org/content/groups/staging/jakarta/transaction/jakarta.transaction-api/2.0.0-RC2/

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 16:03, Alwin Joseph <alwin.joseph@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Tom,
As of now we have generated new signature file to be run in JDK8 as jakarta.transaction.sig_2.0_se8(using
[1],  Is this the same jar that is integrated to glassfish ?)
The sig tests currently pass in standalone mode, but fails in jsp &
servlet vehicles, this needs to be investigated.

We will remove the javax.* and also update the jakarta.transaction.sig_1.2_se11
as jakarta.transaction.sig_2.0_se11 to be run in JDK11.
Regards,
Alwin
On 10/06/20 7:18 pm, Tom Jenkinson wrote:
Hi,

I am not very familiar with the requirements on signatures, but when I 
look at https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-spec-project-leads/msg00413.htmland
at https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/tree/master/src/com/sun/ts/tests/signaturetest/signature-repository,
for Jakarta Transactions I am thinking:

1. We need to add a jakarta.transaction.sig_2.0_se11 (I am not sure what
would go in there though)
2. The following should be removed:
   * jakarta.transaction.sig_1.2_se11
   * javax.transaction.sig_1.2_se8
   * javax.transaction.sig_1.3_se8

Thanks for your assistance,
Tom

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



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

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