|Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCK compliance tests|
Right, we need something that is not open to interpretation. I am fairly confident that there were at least some of us who interpreted that strongly and literally as "a single implementation must exist that itself passes all optional and required aspects of the spec" and that after this point others could be free to implement the optional parts they chose.
If we want to allow a TCK's optional parts to be proven by a mix of implementations who, in aggregate, satisfy all the required and optional aspects of the spec then we should update the EFSP or JESP so no other interpretation is possible.
How about this?
A Compatible Implementation must fully implement all non-optional elements of a Specification Version, must not extend the API (no supersetting), and must fulfill all the requirements of the corresponding TCK. A Specification Version must identify one or more Compatible Implementations under an Open Source License that, in aggregate, implement all optional elements of the Specification and fulfill the requirements of all elements (including optional elements) of the TCK.
Back to the top