Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] Another possible CDI issue

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I had talked with
Scott Marlow briefly about this before he posted his question to the mailing
list...  

My initial thought
was that this could be resolved by a patch update to the TCK.  I didn't
see where this would require a change to the Spec or the API.  To
me, a simple update to the 3.0.x version of the TCK would suffice.  Am
I being too optimistic?

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



From:
       Scott
Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       09/04/2020
13:23
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] Another possible CDI issue
Sent
by:        jakarta.ee-spec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

It is possible. This is the problem with
the TCK covering behaviors for platform specs.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 1:13 PM Werner
Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
I hope, that does not mean a 3rd CDI
Ballot? :-O
 
Von: Scott
Stark
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. September 2020 17:54
An: Jakarta
specification disccusions
Betreff: [jakarta.ee-spec] Another possible CDI issue
 
Another possible issue with the CDI release
has come up during the vote. As outline in this thread and associated issue:
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-tck-dev/msg00950.html
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/cdi-tck/issues/215
 
The CDI TCK has some JWS based tests
that are not categorized as being part of the javaee-full profile
group, and so they are executing in the web profile. This is purely a TCK
issue as neither the spec or api reference JWS, but it seems like a change
is required in order to align with JWS moving to a new namespace and becoming
an option specification that is only part of the full profile.
 
The only question is whether this should
fail the ongoing specification vote again. It is something we should vote
on in the next spec committee meeting. I should have an update to the TCK
by then, but whether it is legitimate to update the TCK during the vote
is a question mark.

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec