bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@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 19:36:08 GMT
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