bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:43:44 GMT
+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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message