|Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [External] : Re: Jakarta TCK package naming convention|
General agreement that ‘jakarta’ namespace (starting with ‘jakarta’) must be avoided in EE10 TCKs
Any non-’jakarta’ namespace is ok for EE10
Hi Scott,Thanks for sharing your thoughts! You are heard:o. I see you have concerns with the new package of ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]. From my understanding, ee.jakarta is trying to say Jakarta EE. Jakarta EE includes the part of SE e.g. Jakarta CDI is under Jakarta EE but it also contains the part CDI SE, When it comes to names, it is almost impossible to make everyone happy. It is like people's names. Different people might have different opinions towards a particular name. If we clearly document ee.jakarta means Jakarta EE and it carries no other meaning, it might clarify some doubts.What do other people think?ThanksEmilyOn Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:17 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:28 AM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Scott,The name change impacts the new tests starting with jakarta.* (polls were used to figure out a name). The overall TCK buckets should not be affected. As for the voting schedule, it was suggested on the mailing list but no one objected. Besides, we need to come to a quick conclusion due to the Jakarta EE 10 train, so the survey was shorter than others.Hi Emily,People were still trying to be heard that seemed to be ignored during the discussion.Also the vote ended before we reached a conclusion on which problem needs to be solved.I agree that this mostly impacts new Standalone TCKs but IMO the most popular choice doesn't sound right appropriate for Standalone TCKs that test both SE + EE. :(Anyway, do you agree that TCKs only should avoid using jakarta as the initial package prefix?I'm not personally against picking a standard TCK package name prefix for new TCK tests.One possible package name prefix could be <spec>.tck but I am sure there other options like the ones you mentioned that don't have EE in them that could be meaningful for both SE + EE.Thanks for listening to my feedback :)ScottLThanksEmilyOn Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:44 AM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:In summary, we should avoid using Jakarta as the first prefix in the package name of certain non spec api classes like TCKs. The reason being that some EE implementations may be filtering spec api classes by simply checking for "jakarta.*" classes as part of application deployment processing.I'm still unsure of the EE 10 schedule cost for this change. I suggest that we make the package change after other TCK changes are merged so that there is less delay caused by this change (e.g. goal being to minimize breaking other in progress TCK work).In future community polls, we should allow more time for input so that more community users can participate.I'm not sure if the choice to use ee.jakarta.tck.[spec] will help any Standalone TCKs but if yes, you now have the option to use it. Historically, we use EE for Jakarta EE TCK tests but not consistently, even less consistently now since all newly added tests might start with EE.Hope this helps,ScottOn Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:06 PM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thank you all for who have voted! Survey result from the community for the TCK package names is as follows.29 responses:package name: votes==================ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]: 14tck.jakarta.[spec]: 7org.eclipse.jakarta.tck.[spec]: 8org.jakartatck.[spec]: 0The clear winner is ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]. The NEW Jakarta TCKs in Jakarta EE 10 can start adopting this package name if their current package names are jakarta.*.To make this vote formal, I was asked to start a ballot on the Spec committee to get this community-chosen package name ee.jakarta.tck.* formally approved by the committee. I'll start that process momentarily.ThanksEmilyOn Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:00 PM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thank you all for who have voted! Survey result from the community for the TCK package names is as follows.29 responses:package name: votes==================ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]: 14tck.jakarta.[spec]: 7org.eclipse.jakarta.tck.[spec]: 8org.jakartatck.[spec]: 0The clear winner is ee.jakarta.tck.[spec]. The NEW Jakarta TCKs in Jakarta EE 10 can start adopting this package name if their current package names are jakarta.*.To make this vote formal, I was asked to start a ballot on the Spec committee to get this community-chosen package name ee.jakarta.tck.* formally approved by the committee. I'll start that process momentarily.ThanksEmilyOn Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 9:38 PM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Lukas,Do we know how long one needs to wait to get recommended package name OR
is it expected that the project teams choose something and repeat the
exercise for EE 11 once the recommendation/requirement is in place?The vote will be closed on 9:21am Pacific Wednesday 12th Jan. You can find the current response here. You can already see the potential winner there. By the way, if you choose something not starting with jakarta.*, you can stick to it for future releases. The new naming convention applies to the new TCKs from Jakarta EE 11 onwards. Any existing TCKs are not required to be updated.ThanksEmilyOn Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 7:51 PM Lukas Jungmann <lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 1/11/22 7:51 PM, Scott Marlow wrote:
> On 1/11/22 1:04 PM, Scott Stark wrote:
>> The issue for EE10 is if TCKs are delivering application deployments
>> under the jakarta.* package namespace, which implementation will
>> challenge this as invalid?
>> Historically (Jakarta EE 9 and earlier), tck deployments were under a
>> vendor specific package namespace, com.sun.*, org.jboss.*, etc.
>> The short term issue is whether the use of jakarta.* package
>> deployments is going to cause problems with getting sufficient
>> compatible implementations certified.
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxrs-api/issues/1081 asks for input on
> the schedule impact of changing the new RESTful Web Services TCK tests
> from jakarta package to something that doesn't start with the jakarta
> I'm curious what the schedule impact would be for the new JSON Binding +
> JSON Processing TCKs to not use the jakarta package name in test classes?
If you ask me and assuming current target (end of Feb), then from the
high level perspective, there are still about 6 weeks to do the work
which looks fine, even though it is not clear to what exactly the
package is expected to be changed yet. Just keep in mind that those who
are expected to do the work are supposed to handle other projects
(specs, impls, TCKs) as well, so more time they spend on this, less time
they'll have for other stuff and that other stuff may not meet the
currently defined deadline.
Do we know how long one needs to wait to get recommended package name OR
is it expected that the project teams choose something and repeat the
exercise for EE 11 once the recommendation/requirement is in place?
>> On Jan 11, 2022 at 6:28:25 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I can agree with all you said but still the problem is there so
>>> conclusion is still TCK must change of packaging at some point.
>>> So discussion points are:
>>> 1. when
>>> 2. how to mitigate next release certification if 1 is after next release
>>> 3. which package
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> | Blog
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!fos1sjDRXC7c7ttwcR9-SuXqknQp-7MecLj6f9lfpCH8vS_koSV3USrIrLZJeOaq3W8$> |
>>> Old Blog
>>> | Github
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/rmannibucau__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!fos1sjDRXC7c7ttwcR9-SuXqknQp-7MecLj6f9lfpCH8vS_koSV3USrIrLZJrAnLuVE$> |
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!fos1sjDRXC7c7ttwcR9-SuXqknQp-7MecLj6f9lfpCH8vS_koSV3USrIrLZJ4gPkq8o$> |
>>> Le mar. 11 janv. 2022 à 13:19, Lukas Jungmann
>>> <lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>>> On 1/11/22 12:21 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>> > Le mar. 11 janv. 2022 à 11:28, Lukas Jungmann
>>> > <mailto:lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :
>>> > to me "should not" != "must not" based on RFC 2119/8174; a
>>> > recommendation is not a requirement per se. But it's
>>> evident I'm still
>>> > missing something.
>>> > Right _for servlet part_, but what does it change?
>>> > Well, read it as it is "implementations should do", they can or
>>> not as
>>> > you point out but they are highly encourage to, so TCK must
>>> assume they
>>> > do, so we didn't move forward AFAIK.
>>> TCKs must be able to handle both cases as both are valid based on
>>> current wording. They are not the ones to assume anything, they
>>> are the
>>> ones to expect things to happen or not to happen based on current
>>> definitions. Ideally, TCKs only follow changes in definitions,
>>> not the
>>> other way around.
>>> Also note that there is a difference between "Jakarta classes" and
>>> "Jakarta Platform classes" and this differentiation should be kept.
>>> Currently, MVC, NoSQL or even some TCKs are "Jakarta classes" but
>>> "Jakarta Platform classes" (given both groups are using jakarta
>> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!fos1sjDRXC7c7ttwcR9-SuXqknQp-7MecLj6f9lfpCH8vS_koSV3USrIrLZJSw1XQBU$
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
Back to the top