Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] How should Platform SPEC level requirements be covered by new (SPEC API) TCKs?

Hola caring Scott, 

Thank you for re-sending the message. 💪 You are just fantastic! 

As many of us are about to start the holiday break or have already started it, I wonder if it is prudent for the TCK community to consider the TCK discussions for the next 2 weeks as incomplete at gathering diverse feedback?  
We could re-initiate and return to proactive collaboration in ALL TCK work from the TCK Community calls (Fridays when demos are available) to written discussions and important call to actions such as the ones you nicely mention in 2021. 

I have been contributing to the TCK work and would like to continue supporting the TCK work. However, I won't be able to help until 2021 due to the holidays. 

🔋 Providing open feedback (bias on my scheduled and not projecting it to anyone), I believe that we chat about stuff and assume expectations or clear them out. Together, we choose to acknowledge and understand that to expect normal contribution as we close the year is not desirable.   Yet if any Jakarta EE wishes to contribute, she/he is most welcomed to do so!  It is up to the individual. We must also consider the ones that won't be in the room and allow time for everyone to return. 

Brainstorming with everyone, 

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:36 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Sending again with a few typos fixed.

There really wasn't enough time in the Platform call on Tuesday to discuss the possibility of having SPEC API level TCKs and how the Platform SPEC requirements would be covered.  We have already had some discussion just not on this mailing list yet.  I would like to answer how we will identify the Platform SPEC level requirements that SPEC API level TCKs must meet.

More details from past discussions over the past few years:

From April 2019, we have jakartaee-tck/issues/51 `Turning Platform TCK into a multi-dependency Maven project` [1].  The follow up discussion is on the Platform TCK mailing list [2].  Of note is Bill Shannon's response [3] about which tests should remain in the Platform TCK (CTS) and which tests should move to the SPEC API project.   This was the first Platform TCK mailing discussion thread that we had regarding [1].

More recently, jaxrs-api/issues/924 was opened to answer `TCK: Extend existing TCK or start our own one?` [4] which has a cross blend of different opinions, they started adding tests already.  Other SPEC API projects have also added tests (e.g. see jsonp tck folder [5]) or are looking to discuss how they will soon add TCK tests. 

Of note are a few Servlet TCK conversations [6] started in Sept 2020 on the servlet-dev ml and continued on the spec-project-leads ml [7] in Oct 2020.  Also Faces [8] has a discussion started as well. 

The Batch SPEC API team opened Platform TCK issues/574 [9] to start maintaining the Batch tests via the Batch SPEC API project instead of the Platform TCK project.  They referenced the [10] conversation about using Arquillian in the Batch TCK.

IMO, regardless of how we decide to maintain the internals of the various TCKs, it would be good to identify what exactly the Platform SPEC requirements are now and in the future that at a minimum are required as requested by [11].













jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top