Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [External] : [BALLOT] Approve the Jakarta TCK package naming convention ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]
Hi Ondro,
This vote is to approve the package ee.jakarta.tck.[spec] can be used by the new TCKs of Jakarta EE 10.

As a matter of fact, the only restriction for the new Jakarta EE 10 TCKs is that they should avoid using jakarta.*. If some TCKs use jakarta.*, they might want to use this package name if approved. None of the existing TCKs need to be renamed.

I think we might need to discuss the reinforcement in more detail for Jakarta EE 10+. I saw more comments regarding the names.
p.s. for more context, please read the email chain as per David's email.
Thanks
Emily

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 7:55 PM Ondro Mihályi <ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,

I think Emily should provide more details about the statement that the committee should vote about. I think the statement is only to approve that the chosen package CAN be usd for new code in the TCK, and not a MUST.

Emily, which one of the following statements did you mean? Or did you mean something else?
  1. The whole Jakarta TCK should use the package name pattern ee.jakarta.tck.[spec], all existing packages should be renamed to follow this pattern.
  2. All the new classes in the Jakarta TCK should use the package name pattern ee.jakarta.tck.[spec], existing packages don't have to be renamed.
  3. It's approved that the code in Jakarta TCK can use the package name pattern ee.jakarta.tck.[spec], but it's not mandatory if the specifications use another package name pattern that doesn't breach anything from the legal point of view.
In the Batch spec, we need to know which pattern we can legally use for new code. We had some internal discussion and we're not united in which is the best pattern to follow, so any advice from the spec committee would help. But we also wouldn't like it if we had to rename the existing packages, which are currently under com.ibm.jbatch.tck. 

Therefore I would personally support if the committee approved statement number 3 but not statement 1 or 2.

Ondro (Payara) - Batch and Messaging committer

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 23:26 Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-1 (Oracle)

We think this needs to be proposed and more clearly described and the conformance timelines must be made explicit. The current proposal suggests this must be implemented immediately if adopted.

We currently allow TCK tests to be defined as the Specification group desires. I cannot speak for other organizations but many of the Oracle team members were unaware there was even a Google poll so they did not have a chance to weigh in, had they wished. I do not think that the Spec. committee had reached a consensus prior to the initiation of this ballot. If there are immediate actions that must take place for the completion of Jakarta EE 10, I would propose those be handled directly with the Specification committer teams. A consensus recommendation is certainly welcome but we don't understand the need to force-rush this, at this time.

-- Ed Bratt

On 1/12/2022 2:22 PM, Emily Jiang via jakarta.ee-spec wrote:

Greetings Jakarta EE Specification Committee.

After a long discussion on the naming convention of the Jakarta TCK namespaces, the Jakarta community chose the package name: ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]. 


I need your vote to approve the Jakarta TCK package name ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]

Per the process, this will be a seven-day ballot, ending on January 19, 2022, that requires a Super-majority positive vote of the Specification Committee members (note that there is no veto). Community input is welcome, but only votes cast by Specification Committee Representatives will be counted.

The Specification Committee is composed of representatives of the Jakarta EE Working Group Member Companies (Fujitsu, IBM, Oracle, Payara, Tomitribe, Primeton, and Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co.), along with individuals who represent the EE4J PMC, Participant Members, and Committer Members.

Specification Committee representatives, your vote is hereby requested. Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject). Any feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated.

Thanks


--
Thanks
Emily


_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!YgehUDLv5YJklphUQRxE8SpVeDChJ-d9_8-IsSqiH8LHK4rypryqMEJX-Kpkqvw$
_______________________________________________
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


--
Thanks
Emily

Back to the top