[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [External] : Re: Interceptors TCK -- what version of Platform TCK?
|
Sorry -- I see that I am confused about interceptors. Thank you
Steve for jogging my memory.
Currently there is a TCK on the Interceptors 2.1 specification
page -- That TCK link points to CDI 4 TCK. Previously versions of
Interceptors used the Platform TCK. I now recall that we couldn't
use the Platform TCK at the time we wanted to finalize CDI and CDI
has a dependency on Interceptors.
We now have a TCK tracking/consistency issue -- Interceptors
refers to CDI 4.0.0 TCK, but CDI is up to 4.0.6.
The CDI TCK user documentation and it doesn't explicitly state
that implementations that pass the CDI TCK qualify as compatible
for Interceptor compatibility (it does say there are lots of tests
but nothing formally conveying a compatibility statement). I think
we want the CDI documents to say that. In the Platform TCK User
Guide it is very explicit: "Jakarta EE 10 Platform TCK provides
compatibility certification verification for implementations
contained in the Platform for the following component
specifications:" (Interceptors appears in the following bullet
list)
In the GlassFish CDI test run (using CDI 4), there are 108
references to Interceptor in the test result. In the Platform TCK
test results, there are 175 tests. This needs to be reconciled so
that we can be confident that the TCK results in consistent and
compatible implementations of Interceptor functionality. The two
suites would, ideally use the same tests for interceptors (and
some of the tests with keyword interceptor may be CDI specific,
not necessarily Interceptor specific).
I know the subject of reorganizing Interceptors to be part of CDI
was raised but I don't recall us making any formal decision about
that. I suspect I was (and likely still would be) reluctant to
actually support that change. I am certain that I at least
stressed caution about not having the same tests in both places.
I think we need to formally decide what we are going to do with
this -- I guess for EE 11. There are differences between what is
tested (or at least reported) by the CDI and Platform TCK under
the keyword Interceptor. This may cause problems if someone were
to complete their certification using only the CDI TCK only later
to find problems when they attempt to complete a Platform
certification that then asserts problems with their (previously
validated) Interceptor implementation.
Since the Platform Spec. team is currently the 'owner' of
Interceptors, that problem would come to this team.
If it's possible, I think the best would be to refactor what
remains in the Platform TCK -- into an independent TCK. Would this
be feasible for EE 11 or was there some structural problem with
creating this as a completely separate TCK? How much investigation
about this has already been accomplished?
Thanks,
-- Ed
On 9/2/2022 1:42 AM, Scott Marlow
wrote:
I'm looking over the various specifications and I
notice that Interceptors 2.0 just
lists the Jakarta EE 9 platform TCK. I believe we are
also allowing Jakarta EE 10 Platform TCK as a
certification TCK for interceptors (all Platform TCKs
can validate for interceptor compatibility). Also (if
I recall) CDI implementations do not need to run an
additional TCK yet will certify compatible
implementations, compatible with Interceptor API.
EE 9 implementations can run the EE 9 Platform
TCk but I don't think they can expect to run the EE 10
Platform TCK until they implement interceptors 2.1 (updates
dependencies for EE 10 and adds a JPMS module-info descriptor)
and implement other EE 10 specs.
So it seems fine to me the way Interceptors 2.0
just lists EE 9 Platform TCK.
I'm wondering how we should convey this information
on the Specification page.
I think at the least, we ought to list the Jakarta EE
10 Platform TCK as an approved compatibility
validation TCK. I do not believe we want to imply that
one must run the EE 9 Platform TCK to certify
Interceptors. I think we can consider saying nothing
on the interceptors Spec. page about CDI TCK, relying
on the CDI TCK to call out the requirement for
interceptor compatibility as well as the validation
that the TCK verifies interceptor compatibility. By
extension, we could say nothing on the Interceptors
page but that, at least to me, leaves me wondering --
what would a vendor be expected to do. Perhaps
something calling out (on the Spec. page) "Platform
products may certify Interceptors compatibility for
their product using the latest Platform TCK of the
Platform version they are releasing."
Anyone have thoughts on this?
(I realize this is kind of an low priority issue
since few if any implementations are going to certify
Interceptors outside of one of the other specification
bodies (EE Platform or CDI TCKs).
-- 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!O674Cxc7wX7g-y9jgaZwr6HEPq7pBlH9gNPrZYEcZuCTpAWwEN24fmvhsQgukpBlyS6yn0APpCpIIto$