[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCK compliance tests
|
I don't know where to jump in on this thread.
Nothing in the rules says one single product must implement all
optional features. I'd like to make two points:
First, what I think the rules and specifications say:
1. If a feature is included in Jakarta EE, it must have a TCK.
2. If a feature in the platform is specified as Optional, the
platform that certifies compatibility of that feature must include
all other Required features. (This is also true for component
specifications, just replace component-name for platform.)
3. If there are multiple independent optional features, nothing
says one single implementation must deliver all the separate
optional features. There must be one of each, but I believe they
can be separate compatible implementations.
Second, the hard dependency Jakarta EE has on Eclipse GlassFish:
Eclipse GlassFish is required today because that's how we build
TCKs for 25 for Specs that come from this project. Once the
working group and/or API project teams refactor how these TCKs are
built and remove the dependency on Eclipse GlassFish, that
requirement goes away. This is not a requirement of our rules or
specification. It's just a consequence of how the Jakarta EE TCK
project implements what it does.
Currently Jakarta EE benefits from Eclipse GlassFish because it
implements all features, required or optional. This was a
consequence of the previous Reference Implementation concept.
Nothing in the Jakarta EE rules forces Eclipse GlassFish to be
used this way. On the other hand, Jakarta EE is able to provide
degrees of freedom to implementers because Eclipse GlassFish
conveniently has those features. This is not a requirement of our
rules or specifications. Eclipse GlassFish could be replaced if
there were another suitable implementation that fills its place.
-- Ed
On 7/2/2020 8:08 AM, Kevin Sutter
wrote:
Scott,
Even if it
doesn't
make sense, I think those are the rules... At least for these
initial
removed features. For example, let's pretend the Open Liberty
wanted
to continue to support J2EE Management after it was removed from
Jakarta
EE 9. J2EE Management was originally part of Java EE and under
the
javax namespace. Thus, falling under the old rules put in place
by
the JCP. If an app server ships the J2EE Management API, then a
corresponding
implementation which passes the TCK is required.
That's the
way
that I have always understood the rules concerning Java EE.
Now,
if someone can cite an alternate understanding, then I'm happy
to be corrected.
Or, maybe something changed since we shipped J2EE Management
with
Jakarta EE 8? I didn't think so since it still uses the javax
namespace.
Maybe someone from Oracle needs to clarify the requirements?
(BTW, this is
another advantage of moving to the jakarta namespace. We can
define
our own rules going forward for removed features post Jakarta EE
9.)
---------------------------------------------------
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
Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
07/02/2020
09:35
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCK
compliance
tests (was: Inconsistency on the term "pruned")
Sent
by: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
That does not make sense. Once
removed
from the platform, it is a vendor specific feature. It is up to
them how
they test that feature, and that can not be a requirement for
certification.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:00 AM Kevin
Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Correct.
Removed features can continue to be shipped and packaged with a
compliant
app server. The TCK from the past release would still need to
be
executed and passed for these removed features.
---------------------------------------------------
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: Gurkan
Erdogdu <cgurkanerdogdu@xxxxxxxxx>
To: jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/02/2020
08:31
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCK
compliance
tests (was: Inconsistency on the term "pruned")
Sent by: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I
thought we did away with the restriction that removed features
cannot be
shipped
IMHO, you can ship but when you ship, you need the pass the
related TCK
suite
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev