|Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCKcompliance tests|
On Jul 3, 2020 at 3:49 pm, <Werner Keil> wrote:_______________________________________________ jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
Remove from the platform or archive entirely?
It seems neither the General EFSP nor the Jakarta EE Extension to it go into great Detail about platforms or Platform Inclusion (or Exclusion) like the JCP does: https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#18.104.22.168
The EFSP has just one brief sentence:
A Specification Committee may, at its discretion, elect to label one or more Profiles as a “Platform”.
However based on "6.1.3. Optional Jakarta Technologies" EE 10 may decide to mark such feature B "proposed optional", and only EE 12 could officially remove it. That wording wasn’t in the JCP document either but was inherited from Java EE.
For an optional spec to be included there should be commitment from at least one sponsor to provide a compatible implementation. If no one is able to do that, the spec should be removed. In your example, EE 10 should remove B.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 9:04 AM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I have a minor question about the modification. Let's look at this scenario:
Say we have optional features A, B, C
In Jakarta EE9, Open Liberty implements A and B. TomEE implements C.
In Jakarta EE 10, Open Liberty decides not to support B any more and no other runtime supports B. Should we remove B from the platform Spec? I don't think this is a valid reason to hold off the release because in aggregation we can't cover all optional elements. This is pretty much a natural route from optional to removal.
If we are in agreement, should this be documented somewhere?
Back to the top