Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] [ejb-dev] Removal of tests for pruned technologi

[Mark Thomas <markt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/10/2020 18:18, Scott Marlow wrote:
> I started to document the Jakarta TCK rules [1] for removing TCK tests
> for removed technologies (like tests that specifically use Corba or the
> Corba IIOP protocol) and also for tests that use DTDs/Schemas older than
> EE 8.
> 
> I think it will help for EE 9 to have consistent rules that we follow
> for $subject.  Feedback on [1] is welcome before it is merged into the
> Platform TCK documentation (perhaps via github pages or wiki).

Those rules are at odds with the views of the individual projects.

Servlet, for example, took explicit steps to ensure that all historic
schemas were shipped in the Servlet API JAR.

JSP, for example, has retained language in the specification document
referring to backwards compatibility including that which requires
different behaviour for TLDs using 2.0 and earlier schemas vs TLDs using
2.1 and later schemas.

I followed the reference to chain to where this was decided and found
VOTE thread on the platform-dev list.

I suspect I missed it at the time as I had my hands full dealing with
CVE-2020-1938.

I note from the minutes of the Jakarta EE Platform call on 2020-01-28
that followed that vote that:

"Option #3 is the desired direction. *Need to widely communicate to the
community*." (my emphasis)

I don't see any communication of this decision to any of the individual
projects (Servlet, Pages, EL, WebSocket) I am most heavily involved in.

The only advantage I saw expressed for not supporting these schemas was
to make it easier for new implementations. Speaking from experience of
providing support for multiple versions of schemas, it is my view that
the benefit here is negligible as the schemas are - by design -
backwards compatible excluding a very small number of edge cases.

The disadvantage is that automatic migration of web applications from
Java EE 8 and earlier to Jakarta EE 9 (or later) is a lot more complex.
Automatic migration that implements the package rename is relatively
simple. As soon as support is dropped for old schemas, migration has the
potential to become a lot more complex - particularly, for example, in
the area of TLDs around how "#{" is interpreted.

Mark


> 
> Scott
> 
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdQCftJHexDouNtrvvUfjknZHhG8sWt1lerwcWpbQrY/edit#heading=h.sygoumfn3qd0
> 
> 
> On 9/29/20 12:38 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro wrote:
>> As discussed today, I think consistency would be my choice.
>>
>> I'll look at the impact in terms of TCK.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com <http://www.tomitribe.com/>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 6:36 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     During the Platform call [1] today it was pointed out that TCKs
>> should
>>     consistently handle all pruned/removed technologies the same (e.g.
>>     either remove related tests or allow related tests to be run
>>     optionally).
>>
>>     We removed the Jakarta Platform EE TCK tests for Jakarta XML
>>     Registries,
>>     Jakarta XML RPC, Jakarta Deployment, Jakarta Management but recently
>>     updated the Platform TCK to treat the com/sun/ts/tests/ejb30 that use
>>     Corba as optional [2].  By default the EJB tests that use Corba
>> are not
>>     run (default is !rmi_iiop&!corba ).
>>
>>     I added David Belevins + the EJB ml to ask what the impact would
>> be if
>>     we adjusted the changes made in [2] to instead remove the ejb30 tests
>>     that use Corba?
>>
>>     We also updated the com/sun/ts/tests/rmiiiop tests to be optional as
>>     well [2].  By default these tests are not run (default is
>>     !rmi_iiop&!corba ).
>>
>>     Feedback on removing the RMI-IIOP tests instead of marking them
>>     optional
>>     by default would also be appreciated.
>>
>>     Thank you Guru for all of your hard work and patience on [2].
>>
>>     Scott
>>
>>     [1]
>>    
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EJ2ilaPhMnQqa3aw6AmwjRbBPGL3_np4uuwklgfqPZI/edit?pli=1
>>
>>
>>     [2] https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/pull/521
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     ejb-dev mailing list
>>     ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>     To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>     https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ejb-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ejb-dev mailing list
>> ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ejb-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