Thank you, Ed, for bringing this up on
the committee! I shared my following
thoughts:
One issue with alternate
is that the tests might make into
future release. A further clean up
needs to be performed before another
minor/major release. We need to track
this. I am not sure whether it is
necessary to introduce this approach
as an implementation can choose which
service release they certify. If an
implementation certifies against a
previous tck, they can continue to do
so.
Also, as mentioned before
on the mailing list, I think we should
have more freedom to update tests
before platform or web profile
releases since they will lock down
which service release, they will pull
in. We can fix the tcks on a
particular service release and then
package with platform or web profile
release. Any runtime that certifies
against individul specs instead web
profile or platform, it can choose a
particular version.
Hi, Just being overly diligent -- The
PR discussed at the last Spec.
committee meeting considers adding
text allowing Alternate tests in
specification patch releases. There
are now a couple of proposals to
describe this. One in the original,
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External
Sender
This message came from outside
your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi,
Just being overly diligent -- The PR
discussed at the last Spec.
committee meeting considers adding
text allowing Alternate tests in
specification patch releases. There
are now a couple of proposals to
describe this. One in the original,
and now one offered by me, in a
comment on
the PR.
As a committee, we should be sure to
consider first, if we are in favor of
adding Alternate tests to
specification patch releases. If so,
then how we will describe this as part
of the JESP. If we proceed, we should
be prepared to adopt text that we are
comfortable with, that suitably
describes, limits, etc. their use.
I'm not sure everyone on the
committee is subscribed to the jakarta.ee
repository -- I hope you all are
-- and this message is simply added
noise about this proposal. This is
potentially significant enough that I
feel a record of this be kept in the
spec.committee list.
Personally, I am happy to endorse
Alternate tests. We occasionally used
them previously but they were not used
frequently. In later releases, it was
much more common to simply exclude
tests that were insufficient when the
specification version was released. I
would like to ensure:
- the addition of alternate tests
never causes rework on the part of
any vendor
- doesn't imply that a vendor's
certification is different because
it uses the original or alternate
tests
- doesn't create additional
reporting issues for vendors
- is not used by specification teams
to add or change compatibility
assertions that the tests verify
On a historical note, it is my
recollection, we did not include
Alternate tests in the original JESP
simply because there was no need for
them, for the first set of Jakarta
tests. We simply elected not to take
the time, nor expend the effort
needed, to describe and agree on this,
as a feature of the JESP. It seems as
if the time has come to consider
bringing this feature into the JESP.
-- Ed