In light of what Brian said, I think it makes sense for the EE 11 platform spec to clearly mention EJB 2.x to be included on the EE 11 Platform spec, which would have no impact on the TCK project. In the next release, we can probably remove the requierment and TCKs. I added the jakarta-platform mailing list for a wider discussion. I think this needs to be discussed prior to the call next week and hopefully we can settle this offline before the call. Any objections, please shout asap.
On 3/6/24 10:01, Brian Decker via
jakartaee-tck-dev wrote:
“We do not yet know the Jakarta EE 11
Platform requirements for EJB 2.x features. I suggest that we
schedule a TCK specifically for discussing EJB 2.x features
when we know the answer.”
My thinking is more that our input should
be taken into consideration before anyone comes up with an
answer. We, and the folks on the spec committee, should know
how much work this might be in order to make a practical,
informed decision instead of just making a purely academic one
that ignores the reality on the ground in the current TCKs.
"
The Specification Committee is responsible for producing,
publishing and
maintaining operational guidance documentation for specification
projects. This includes the minimum requirements and process for
producing a Final Specification. It also includes operational
guidance
for running a specifications TCK for the purpose of testing for
compatibility.
...
Creating a Final
Specification
A release review will have validated that the specification
project has:
3. Generate standalone TCK
results or platform TCK result as
appropriate for the spec project.
"
I think that it is more of the responsibility of the Platform
team to decide the Platform Specification requirements.
EJBHome issue, raised by Jared Anderson. Platform TCK has to cover the platform requirements, and no more. For the EE 11 release, EJB will still be included. EJB includes 2.x interfaces. All optional components will be removed unless they are specifically included by the platform. Will the EE 11 platform include the requirement for EJB 2.1 to be implemented or not.
If it is not, should we produce an EJB jar that does include them? An optional jar?
There’s the TCK side
There’s the platform side.
"
Repeating from Slack: The problem is not
the obvious EJB tests that would be impacted. It’s all of the
tests in the 14 unrelated packages in the TCK, e.g. assembly,
integration, jdbc, jms, jta, etc. In an ideal world, those
can’t or shouldn’t just be separated out or removed.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at
4: 52 PM Brian Decker via jakartaee-tck-dev
<jakartaee-tck-dev@ eclipse. org> wrote: I would not
be able to make a call on the 13th, but I was hoping to be
present to discuss issues and developments around the
optional
I would not
be able to make a call on the 13th, but
I was hoping to be present to discuss issues and
developments around the optional EJB features, if
nothing else.
We do not yet know the Jakarta EE 11
Platform requirements for EJB 2.x features. I suggest
that we schedule a TCK specifically for discussing EJB
2.x features when we know the answer.
More details on the EE Platform
Specification and what happens to (previously) optional
features that are not made to be required by the EE 11
Platform:
Draft resolution for optional
features in the Platform specification (also see issue
#54), to
be put forward for ballot in the 02/08 call:
○ "An individual specification can have optional
features, however when a
component specification is included in the Platform and
Web Profile, and Core
Profile an optional feature must be explicitly declared
as required, otherwise it is
not required. This requirement is noted in the Platform
specification.”
Hi, I have
a conflict tomorrow that may involve a lot of
noise near my office that would make it
difficult to talk. Can you meet next week on
March 13 instead of tomorrow? The time is
still the same 11: 00 AM EST but there is a
time shift
Hi,
I have a
conflict tomorrow that may involve a lot of
noise near my office that would make it
difficult to talk. Can you meet next week on
March 13 instead of tomorrow? The time is
still the same 11:00 AM EST but there is a
time shift ahead by one hour for those in
non-day-light-savings time zones.