This all makes sense to me now.Thanks you for clarifying.
The EFSP and MPSP/operations guide require at least one compatible implementation and its attendant CCR to exist when a final specification is put up for a ratification vote. It is the specification that is being voted on, not the compatible implementation. The compatible implementation used to verify that at least one implementation is capable of passing the associated TCK is only special in the sense that it is the first.
The associated specification project is responsible for approving all CCRs made against the specification, including the first one. There was a discussion about simplifying the process to create a CCR in the MP group for CCRs that are not part of a specification ratification. This is what Emily is referring to.
Hi Emily,
There was indeed no guideline defined for MP 4.0 as umbrella spec. But for an individual spec, pointing to the TCK results is not enough as for releasing the spec itself, a CCR and voting was required for the implementation of a spec.
You cannot expect different requirements for different implementations of a specification (CCR and voting for the first, pointing to the TCK results for the following ones).
Regards
Rudy
Technical Sales / Developer Advocate
Payara
- Supported Enterprise Software for Jakarta EE and MicroProfile Applications
T: +1 415 523 0175 | UK: +44 207 754 0481 | M: 0044 7412 588
569
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payara-Tech LDA, Registered Office: Rua Nova de São Pedro no. 54, 2nd floor, room “D”, 9000 048 Funchal, Ilha da Madeira,
Portugal
If at any time you would like to unsubscribe from Payara communications, simply respond to this email with 'Unsubscribe' in the title, or instantly unsubscribe from all types of
communication here.
From my best knowledge, there was no compliance guideline defined for MP 4.0, which was a marketing release. It is not required to file CCRs for the implementation. CCR was for releasing specifications. In Open Liberty, we ran our build against MP tcks
and documented the tset result
here. MP is in the process of defining the certification process in the MP 4.1 release.
Thanks
Emily
Hi,
I am in the process of making Payara MP-4.0-compliant implementation.
Currently, the only way I see to do this is to open CCRs for each individual Specs.
Is there a plan in place to just have one CCR for all of MicroProfile?
If there is, is there a timeframe for this to happen?
I am trying to decide if it’s worth to do CCRs for all the Specs individually or wait
for the “umbrella” spec compatibility issue process to be developed.
I would gladly contribute to this effort as well.
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
--
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
_______________________________________________ microprofile-wg mailing list microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
|
