Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [ejb-dev] [External] : Please give your est

[David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Mar 19, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Lukas Jungmann <lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> let me try it from the different end.. Activation TCK 9.0.0 release was/is able to verify compliance with the Activation 2.0 spec on both - Java 8 as well as Java 11, including verifying signatures. Platform 9.1 defines that it includes Activation spec v. 2.0. Platform does not care about particular service release of the activation spec implementation as long as it complies with the 2.0 spec version, so it should not matter whether there is activation spec implementation 2.0.0, 2.0.1 or 2.0.436 in the platform implementation as long as it passes Activation TCK 9.0.0. This should be reflected at the platform-level TCK in the same manner - Platform 9.1 TCK release should just include/reuse existing Activation TCK 9.0.0 release unless there is some blocker for running 9.0.0 version of the Activation TCK on Java 11 (like ie missing signature files) or some change in Activation TCK needed by the Platform TCK - so far I'm not aware of any request for such change and if there is, then it is not in the jaf-tck issue tracker.

When you say "Activation TCK 9.0.0" I assume you mean "The Activation section of the Jakarta EE Platform TCK 9.0", is that right?

If so I agree with all your points and recapping them to make sure I understand:

 - Either the Platform TCK or Standalone TCK can be used to verify compatibility with an individual spec
 - Therefore if, for example, Activation TCK tests in Platform 9.0 and Platform 9.1 are significantly different or conflicting, that's an issue

That's what I understood from the above and if that's what you intended to say, I think it's an incredibly sharp and good call out.

I just took a look and we've added 127 commits to the Platform TCK since 9.0 was released.  I attempted to do a diff and it looks like there are an excessive number of files changed just due to updates on the copyright year.  I'll be preparing a commit to revert those on files where the only update is the copyright year so we can see a real diff of what we've done since 9.0.

Ideally we don't find changes that wouldn't be acceptable for a service release of that component spec.

> If we want to get to the point where we want to be able to say that Platform 9.1 and Platform TCK 9.1 are fully built by, on and for Java 11, then yes, even these standalone TCKs require an update as those 9.0.0 releases were mostly built by Java 8.

The approved Plan Review for Platform 9.1 is that it will be built on Java 8 and be runnable on 8 and 11.

> We also may want to somehow align platform and standalone TCK version numbers but that is something one would need to know about and also something what should be put into a different thread as Scott has suggested already.

This one I'm not sure I understood.


-David