Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] certification request for specs with no

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Specific to Bill's
observation...

Just to have something
concrete for discussion, I went ahead and created a separate CR for the
Managed Beans certification:
(1)  https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/104

The original PR
for Managed Beans (https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/19)
had just referenced the Glassfish CR for the Platform:
(2)  https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/99

The only difference is the individual CR (1) contains a reference to the
Managed Beans 1.0 specification.  Other than that, the data is the
same.  I will say that filing (1) does make everything more consistent.
 Just given the timeframe, should we allow for either approach for
Jakarta EE 8?

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:
       Ed
Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       08/20/2019
11:08 AM
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] certification request for specs with no
standalone TCK?
Sent
by:        jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

My mistake, EclipseLink issue is filed
correctly: jpa-api#228(I hadn't updated my information on that project). I believe that the others
with stand-alone TCKs have been moved.
Open MQ: jms-api#239
Mojarra: faces-api#1475
Soteria: security-api#143
I have no news for the Specs. that Bill
initially wrote about.
On 8/19/2019 1:42 PM, Ed Bratt wrote:
This inconsistency isn't just found with
specifications that do not have their own TCKs:

• Jakarta Messaging -- certification request is currently an issue filed against Openmq #482
• Jakarta Persistence -- certification request is currently an issue filed against EclipseLink #501
• Jakarta Server Faces -- certification request is currently an issue filed against Mojarra #4620
• Jakarta Security -- certification request is currently an issue filed against Soteria #260

--
Ed
On 8/19/2019 1:08 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
Some of our specs have no standalone
TCK and depend on the platform
TCK for testing, such as Enterprise Beans, Managed Beans, and Interceptors.

In these cases, what do we expect for the certification request?

Should there still be a certification request filed against the corresponding
spec project, indicating that the CI is GlassFish and the TCK is the platform
TCK?

Or should the PR just reference the certification request for GlassFish
for
the full platform spec?

I'm assuming the former, but it seems that some projects have done the
latter,
e.g., https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/interceptor-api/issues/49
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee