|Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCK compliance tests|
I thought that's what "at least" gave us. I'm up for improving
the language if the consensus conclusion is that this says there
must be at least one "super" implementation.
I will second the point BJ made earlier -- the more optional elements there are, the less a customer can count on the specification to provide certainty about the product.
Regardless, I don't know that this is something that needs to
derail Jakarta EE 9. Am I missing something?
The EFSP states this for Compatible Implemention:
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 at least one Compatible Implementation under an Open Source License that implements all optional elements of the Specification and fulfills the requirements of all elements (including optional elements) of the TCK.
So, depending on the interpretation of the second sentence, the optional elements could be satisfied by one or more Compatible Impls. Regardless, it states that a Specification Version (ie. Jakarta EE 9) has to provide one or more CIs that demonstrate all Required and Optional aspects of the spec.
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
From: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/02/2020 16:55
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCK compliance tests
Sent by: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> On Jul 2, 2020, at 8:48 AM, Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> First, what I think the rules and specifications say:
> 1. If a feature is included in Jakarta EE, it must have a TCK.
> 2. If a feature in the platform is specified as Optional, the platform that certifies compatibility of that feature must include all other Required features. (This is also true for component specifications, just replace component-name for platform.)
> 3. If there are multiple independent optional features, nothing says one single implementation must deliver all the separate optional features. There must be one of each, but I believe they can be separate compatible implementations.
So it sounds like to your interoperation the scenario I describe of Joe's and Jane's pizza implementations would allow the final spec/TCK to be shipped.
Is there anyone who would disagree with this?
If not, we should codify this understanding at the specification committee level so it isn't open to interpretation.
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________ jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
Back to the top