Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Lead approval for Compatibility request?

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually a good example,
Scott.  Thanks.  But, I still go back to just letting them explain
that situation.  Now that I go back and re-read the comments in this
Issue, I see that they did reply to this condition:

There is a button to apply for a trial
version on our official website. You can get our product package in this
way. The reason for not directly providing a download link is to prevent
the product package from being obtained by criminals.This is not safe.

I just think that
we should encourage the download link or provide reasons why this can not
be provided.  Just leaving it as optional leaves too many questions
unanswered -- as this note chain and the Issue is showing.  As Ivar
pointed out in the Issue, maybe this is something to discuss at the Spec
Committee.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)



From:
       Scott
Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
       jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       02/24/2021
14:27
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Lead approval for Compatibility request?
Sent
by:        "jakartaee-platform-dev"
<jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

Ok, but I don't know the cultural norms
of this APAC and China in this case with regard to how software distribution
is handled. All the examples you list are from U.S. headquartered
companies. A link to the binary might be a nice to have, but not a requirement. 

Let's just give an example, probably
hypothetical example, but say some quantum computer vendor wants to certify
the EE implementation that is only available as a pre-configured circuit
in their $10M computer. There is no download link. There is only a custom
OS and some other bundled Java SE miminicing runtime base that is not Java
SE compatible. They should be able to submit a certification request
that only provides the results of the TCK run as proof.




On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:05 PM Kevin
Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sure, I buy that.
 But, at least provide the link.  If you need credentials or
license or whatever to do the actual download, then that's okay. 
That's what we do with our WebSphere Liberty downloads.  But, at least
provide a long-lived url that could be used as a reference.  That's
my point.

It looks like Fujitsu does a similar thing.  And, even Oracle does
something similar with requiring a license checkbox.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx    Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)



From:        Scott
Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>
To:        jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        02/24/2021
13:59
Subject:        [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Lead approval for Compatibility request?
Sent by:        "jakartaee-platform-dev"
<jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

All that we can require is that the results be available in a public accessible
form. We cannot require access to the server binary nor can we require
access to the platform used to run the TCK and server. Both could be proprietary
derivatives of some OS and Java SE. All we can verify is that the correct
TCK was passed and that the results look consistent with the expected TCK
results.


On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:52 AM Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Kevin,

I definitely see your point. But I have a question. The EFSP specifically
supports the enablement of independent implementations made available under
proprietary license terms. Under such licensing approaches sometimes the
binaries are available only to paying customers. What would be a reasonable
mechanism to support these scenarios given our self-certification approach?

To be clear, I am not certain that this is what is happening in this particular
case. But I think it is at least close. 

On 2021-02-24 2:33 p.m., Kevin Sutter wrote:
Ed,
I was seeing all of the back-and-forth in this Issue and I thought things
were still in state of flux...  Based on this note, I just went out
to the CCR and found several of the items that you had already pointed
out.  But, I also found a couple of new ones.

I also take exception with the idea that a download link or page is not
required.  Every CCR that I have been reviewing, I have been treating
this as a requirement.  I know it says "(if applicable)",
but I've been holding them to higher standard.  How else can these
CCRs stand the test of time?  We need CIs to be long-lived and available
on an external, public web site.  Otherwise, as @hantsy pointed out,
how else do we know that this request is real?  Granted, none of us
will attempt to actually run the tests.  But, I think we need to require
a real download executable.

I've posted my comments to the Issue.  I am not ready to approve it
yet.


---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx 
  Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)



From:        Ed
Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        02/24/2021
11:25
Subject:        [EXTERNAL]
[jakartaee-platform-dev] Lead approval for Compatibility request?
Sent by:        "jakartaee-platform-dev"
<jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

Hi,
Calling your attention to the Platform Certification request, currently
pending for Jakarta EE 8, Inforsuite AS.
Compatibility
certification request for InforSuite Application Server for Full Platform
#306
It's been reviewed by Ivar and myself. They'd like approval as quickly
as possible -- that would be 14 days from when it was filed (Feb. 28th),
unless a lead approves. I've identified a minor correction to the TCK results
summary, but otherwise, it looks good to me. 
Does anyone with the Lead role want to approve this now (or maybe tomorrow)?
-- Ed_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
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


--

Mike Milinkovich

Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation AISBL

mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

@mmilinkov

+1.613.220.3223 (m)

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
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

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
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