Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Re: TCK archive format? (Co

[Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>]

There is no access to a user guide (required) and any example CI setup that is often included in a full TCK dist. Users certainly should have the ability to directly access the components directly via a repo, but I don't see how that can be the only mechanism when it comes to ratifying the associated spec. Am I missing the context in which you are asking about this?

On Dec 8, 2021 at 12:09:53 PM, Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Scott.

This seems to suggest that users should NOT have access directly to the normative TCK artifacts -- That they should pull the comprehensive archive, unpack and digest it, THEN, utilize the contents. Is that a fair re-state?

We include GAVs for the API jars and JavaDocs. Why would we want to enforce force additional overhead on the TCKs (both on construction of the archive and on consumption)? (Or, what it is about TCK usage that I'm minimizing.)

-- Ed

On 12/8/2021 8:02 AM, Scott Stark wrote:

For the final submission I still think there needs to be a single zip that is comprehensive. The use of jar artifacts in a repo facilitates the ability to easily integrate TCK testing into CI environments, but it is a bad starting point to running the TCKs. Only after you have gone through the full zip distribution and associated user guide/example do you start wanting the individual artifacts.

On Dec 8, 2021 at 9:58:16 AM, Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

As we move the TCK responsibilities to component projects and, as we
continue migrating away from the legacy TCK build tools, to MVN or other
build tooling, I wonder if we should hold on to the requirement that we
only accept .zip file bundles for normative TCK submissions.

Would the committee be interested in relaxing the formal requirements to
allow either <name>.zip OR <name>.jar? If we did this, projects would
not need to create multiple bundles and we could start to use Maven
Central or other types of distribution mechanisms more directly.

I believe all other requirements (SHA Sums, contents, etc.) can be
maintained just as directly with either file format.

Comments?

I don't know that we could adopt this before the close of the year, but
... perhaps this is simple enough to take up without extensive discussion.

Thanks,

-- Ed

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To 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 unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!a7DQDPqHeJq3Q0JbFqLFGnY9MKejqQtnohN_jFIYScnrOBo80YCr4N58Bxi9VNM$