bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:02:48 GMT
+1 for the latest TCK too.

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org, gudnabrsam@gmail.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 7:43 PM
> +1 for using the latest official
> version.
> 
> regards,
> gerhard
> 
> http://www.irian.at
> 
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
> 
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> 
> 
> 
> 2011/6/15 Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>
> 
> > jsr303-tck v1.0.5.GA came out today.  This
> question is still open.  I
> > remind the group that one codebase *cannot*
> simultaneously pass a TCK
> > < v1.0.5 and one >= v1.0.5.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I feel like we're going in circles, but I feel
> like the clouds may be
> > breaking since you've mentioned "as part of our Java
> EE 6 projects."  Am I
> > to understand that this is the context in which "the
> TCK provided by Oracle"
> > manages to trump that provided by the spec lead? 
> My next question is then
> > whether we have any recourse to seek an updated TCK
> from Oracle?
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > On Jan 23, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> > >
> > >> Currently, 1.0.3.GA is the latest version we
> have from Oracle for the
> > >> ASF to use as part of our Java EE 6
> projects.  Until we get an updated
> > >> version, we need to maintain compliance with
> that level.  We could
> > >> create a 1.0.x maintenance branch for the
> 1.0.3 TCK and then upgrade
> > >> trunk to >= 1.0.5.
> > >>
> > >> -Donald
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1/14/11 4:39 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >>> imo we should always aim to pass the
> latest available (and known good)
> > TCK.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please note that there are often some
> known issues _inside_ some TCK
> > due to over-interpretation of the spec wording,
> differences between the spec
> > wording and the spec-published javadoc (which has
> higher prio), etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> So taking the latest available (and
> reporting any problems back to the
> > EG) is always a good thing imo.
> > >>>
> > >>> LieGrue,
> > >>> strub
> > >>>
> > >>> --- On Fri, 1/14/11, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> From: Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
> > /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> > >>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 9:12
> PM
> > >>>> Resurrecting this thread:
> > >>>>  While it may be possible, as
> David suggests, to
> > >>>> manage different TCK
> > >>>> versions with Maven profiles, the
> point will become moot
> > >>>> after the
> > >>>> release of the 1.0.5 version of the
> > >>>> TCK:   due to
> > >>>> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> JSR303 implementation will
> realistically be able to pass a
> > >>>> TCK <
> > >>>> v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not
> both.  My personal
> > >>>> preference is to make
> > >>>> Apache Bean Validation conform to the
> spec and thus the
> > >>>> later version
> > >>>> of the TCK.  Can we take a basic
> poll as to the
> > >>>> general preference of
> > >>>> the team?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Matt
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 10/4/10, Gerhard <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> i agree with mark.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> regards,
> > >>>>> gerhard
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> http://www.irian.at
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> > >>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
> > >>>>> Courses in English and German
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Professional Support for Apache
> MyFaces
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Oki, sorry for not being
> specific enough. I'll try
> > >>>> to rephrase what I
> > >>>>>> mean:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If we pass the open JSR-303
> TCK, then we can claim
> > >>>> to be 'JSR-303
> > >>>>>> compatible' and 'successfully
> passed the JSR-303
> > >>>> TCK'.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But for calling us
> 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303
> > >>>> certified' then we would of
> > >>>>>> course need to go the
> official oracle route.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> makes sense?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>>>>> strub
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David
> Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit:
> r1002445 -
> > >>>>>>
> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> > >>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1,
> 2010, 11:04 PM
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22
> PM, Mark Struberg
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> isn't the JSR-303
> ASL-2 licensed [1]?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> So I don't think we
> need to wait for any
> > >>>> special
> > >>>>>>> Oracle agreement!
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> If you like, then I
> could ping Emmanuel,
> > >>>> but usually
> > >>>>>>> the latest TCK is
> available in the jboss
> > >>>> maven repo.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think it makes sense to
> run both for
> > >>>> now.  Since its
> > >>>>>>> a jcp managed spec, to
> claim compliance, I
> > >>>> think we have
> > >>>>>>> to  run the tck from
> the official jcp
> > >>>> channels, which,
> > >>>>>>> unless we hear something
> different from
> > >>>> Oracle, is Oracle.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Can we put the choice of
> tck in a couple
> > >>>> profiles?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> david jencks
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>>>>>>> strub
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>
> > http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10,
> Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> From: Donald
> Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn
> commit: r1002445 -
> > >>>>>>>
> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> > >>>>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> Date: Friday,
> October 1, 2010, 10:14
> > >>>> PM
> > >>>>>>>>> Hopefully Kevan
> will chime in too,
> > >>>>>>>>> but it's my
> understanding that we
> > >>>>>>>>> have to pass the
> BVAL TCK as
> > >>>> provided by Oracle
> > >>>>>>> under the
> > >>>>>>>>> Oracle/ASF NDA
> > >>>>>>>>> in order to claim
> we're
> > >>>> certified....
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> During daily
> testing, I use the TCK
> > >>>> files
> > >>>>>>> downloaded from
> > >>>>>>>>> the JBoss
> > >>>>>>>>> repo. 
> Before we release the
> > >>>> Apache BVAL
> > >>>>>>> artifacts, I
> > >>>>>>>>> always run the
> > >>>>>>>>> release artifacts
> against the TCK as
> > >>>> provided by
> > >>>>>>> Oracle.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> -Donald
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 2:14
> PM, Matt Benson
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1,
> 2010, at 12:26 PM,
> > >>>> Donald Woods
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> current BVAL TCK from
> > >>>> Oracle that we
> > >>>>>>> have to
> > >>>>>>>>> certify with is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which
> uses
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> 1.0.3.GA level of
> the API.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Apparently I
> am not fully
> > >>>> cognizant of the
> > >>>>>>> TCK-related
> > >>>>>>>>> aspects of the
> JCP process.
> > >>>>>>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK
> > >>>>>>>>> says:
> > >>>>>>>>>>   
> TBD - Need to ask
> > >>>> if we must use
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> Sun/Oracle
> provided TCK for final
> > >>>> certification
> > >>>>>>> testing....
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Have there
> been further
> > >>>> developments in this
> > >>>>>>>>> regard?  It
> was my impression
> > >>>> that a spec
> > >>>>>>>>> implementation
> must simply pass the
> > >>>> TCK supplied
> > >>>>>>> by the spec
> > >>>>>>>>> lead.  I had
> no idea there was
> > >>>> both an Oracle
> > >>>>>>> TCK and a
> > >>>>>>>>> JBoss TCK. 
> Where I can learn
> > >>>> more about
> > >>>>>>> certification
> > >>>>>>>>> as it applies to
> this JSR and our
> > >>>> efforts?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> If you
> look at the TCK that
> > >>>> gets
> > >>>>>>> downloaded during
> > >>>>>>>>> the TCK build,
> those
> > >>>>>>>>>>> files
> also download the
> > >>>> 1.0.3.GA level of
> > >>>>>>> the API
> > >>>>>>>>> and matches the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> distribution as provided by
> > >>>> Oracle.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I honestly
> don't see where you
> > >>>> see this.
> > >>>>>>> I don't
> > >>>>>>>>> see any
> indication of it in
> > >>>>>>>
> bval-tck/target/dependency/lib
> > >>>>>>>>> or in the tck
> POM.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I haven't
> looked at the
> > >>>> 1.0.4 level yet,
> > >>>>>>> so is
> > >>>>>>>>> there something
> in there
> > >>>>>>>>>>> that we
> need?  What
> > >>>> changes were
> > >>>>>>> introduced?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> My lack of
> understanding of the
> > >>>> issues simply
> > >>>>>>> led me
> > >>>>>>>>> to believe that
> the more recent
> > >>>> release of the
> > >>>>>>> spec we could
> > >>>>>>>>> pass, the
> better.  In
> > >>>> particular I had hoped
> > >>>>>>> that there
> > >>>>>>>>> might be a
> difference in TCK
> > >>>> versions with regard
> > >>>>>>> to my
> > >>>>>>>>> allegations on
> the incorrectness of
> > >>>> the RI
> > >>>>>>> implementation of
> > >>>>>>>>> the Path
> interface.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> -Matt
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On
> 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt
> > >>>> Benson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On
> Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18
> > >>>> AM, Donald
> > >>>>>>> Woods
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Matt, the latest TCK
> > >>>> drop from
> > >>>>>>> Oracle is
> > >>>>>>>>> 1.0.3, so I'd
> rather not move
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> up until we have a
> > >>>> newer TCK level
> > >>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>> matches.....
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
> fine with whatever
> > >>>> the community
> > >>>>>>> decides,
> > >>>>>>>>> of course, but
> can you explain the
> > >>>> above?
> > >>>>>>> I'm afraid I
> > >>>>>>>>> don't
> understand...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> -Matt
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> -Donald
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM,
> > >>>> mbenson@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Author: mbenson
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Date: Wed Sep 29
> > >>>> 01:53:36
> > >>>>>>> 2010
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> New
> Revision:
> > >>>> 1002445
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Log:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> upgrade to tck
> > >>>> version
> > >>>>>>> 1.0.4.GA
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Modified:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Modified:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> URL:
> > >>>>>>
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> ==============================================================================
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> ---
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> (original)
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> +++
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> Wed Sep 29
> > >>>>>>> 01:53:36
> > >>>>>>>>> 2010
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@
> -92,7 +92,7
> > >>>> @@
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>   <dependency>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <version>1.0.3.GA</version>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <version>1.0.4.GA</version>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>   
> </dependency>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>   <dependency>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message