[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] : Re: TCK archive format? (Consider allowing JAR or ZIP)
|
Scott,
I did not see the requirement of the following as per your note:
"The issue is that we have a required user guide, and as Mike has pointed out, a need for a single TCK licensed binary distribution for compatibility requests."
I have not found any requirement stating only one TCK licensed binary distribution allowed.
Thanks
Emily
================
Emily Jiang
Java Champion
STSM, Senior Lead in MicroProfile @IBM
Liberty Cloud Native Architect & Advocate
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilyfhjiang/
IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU
----- Original message -----
From: "Scott Stark" <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: "jakarta.ee-spec.committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jakarta specification committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] : Re: TCK archive format? (Consider allowing JAR or ZIP)
Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2021 3:09 PM
Many of the projects with separate TCKs already publish artifacts for use in development/testing environments. That is really not the problem. The issue is that we have a required user guide, and as Mike has pointed out, a need for a single ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Many of the projects with separate TCKs already publish artifacts for use in development/testing environments. That is really not the problem.
The issue is that we have a required user guide, and as Mike has pointed out, a need for a single TCK licensed binary distribution for compatibility requests. It is this requirement that will have to be dealt with to change how a spec is ratified, and subsequently how compatible implementations make a compatibility claim. Resolving this is certainly a post EE10 item.
The best that can be done in the interim is to publish artifacts in addition to creating a single dist bundle.
Agreed, Arjan! MicroProifle parent build is here (
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-parent/blob/master/pom.xml). Do we think we can do the similar thing in Jakarta by defining a parent pom and all specs can inherit it to ensure a unified build infrastructure? Not sure whether it is too late for Jakarta EE 10. Maybe something to think about after Jakarta EE 10. For Jakarta EE 10, I think we should allow the specs create tck jars in their own repo to start with.
Thanks
Emily
================
Emily Jiang
Java Champion
STSM, Senior Lead in MicroProfile @IBM
Liberty Cloud Native Architect & Advocate
IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU
----- Original message -----
From: "arjan tijms" <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: "jakarta.ee-spec.committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jakarta specification committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] : Re: TCK archive format? (Consider allowing JAR or ZIP)
Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2021 10:32 AM
Hi,
All of MicroProfile spec TCKs are pushed to maven repo with everything packaged in a jar with running instructions etc. I don't quite understand the challenges here.
Thanks Emily, that was exactly what I wanted to reply as well. Isn't this all a simple matter of looking at how it's done in MicroProfile?
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
