[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] Relaxing signature testing
|
On 17/03/2021 16:29, Lance Andersen wrote:
If compatibility is still of the same importance as it was for Java EE,
then there should not be any extra annotations/APIs that are vendor
specific that are included within the signatures.
Maybe this is less of a concern now for Jakarta EE, I hope not?
There are annotations, such as this BND annotations, that may be used at
build time and have zero impact on runtime behaviour and/or compatibility.
For this specific case, what are your compatibility concerns regarding
ignoring the annotation when performing the signature test for the TCK?
Mark
On Mar 17, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:markt@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose we relax the signature testing for some specific
scenarios.
This proposal was triggered by this TCK issue:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/issues/643__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!JDIVVevsMyZU9HI-9ALn_ZBJ-4gDNIceBhrjpxz47LCu_zqiUbm-YBGqwbGz9Ya7Xg$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/issues/643__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!JDIVVevsMyZU9HI-9ALn_ZBJ-4gDNIceBhrjpxz47LCu_zqiUbm-YBGqwbGz9Ya7Xg$>
Vendors providing their own API JARs may wish to add annotations such
as aQute.bnd.annotation.spi.ServiceConsumer which are required if
using BND to generate correct OSGI metadata.
These annotations have no runtime impact and are, effectively,
transparent to API clients.
Conversely, it is possible an API project could add such an annotation
but a vendor providing their own API does not.
The proposal is that we create a list of annotations that should be
ignored when performing the signature tests for the TCK.
The initial list (based on those Tomcat 10 is currently using) of
proposed annotations to ignore is:
aQute.bnd.annotation.spi.ServiceConsumer
Annotations would have to be confirmed as having no runtime impact
before they could be added to this list.
The alternative approach, in this instance, is to add these
annotations to the Jakarta provided API JARs and require any vendor
provided API JARs to use the same annotations. However, I suspect that
there will be other annotations associated with other build time tools
that will fall into this category over time and that it will not
always be appropriate to include the annotation in the Jakarta
provided API JARs.
Thoughts?
Mark
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!JDIVVevsMyZU9HI-9ALn_ZBJ-4gDNIceBhrjpxz47LCu_zqiUbm-YBGqwbHJJwrpZA$
Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering
1 Network Drive
Burlington, MA 01803
Lance.Andersen@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Lance.Andersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev