[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Certification Requests for Specifications with no TCK
|
I appreciate the logic, but the result is the same for me. These duplicate filings are ceremonial overhead at this time.
None of us are blessed with an abundance of time. There is a bit of waste here.
David,
I think we're
mixing two scenarios...
1) As part
of the EJB Spec deliverable, we need to run the TCK. In this case,
the TCK tests are part of the overall Jakarta EE TCK. This is similar
to the Management API and Managed Beans, as you outlined below. There
really is not much difference whether we re-use the Glassfish Certification
Request or create separate EJB/Mgmt API/Managed Beans Certification Requests.
But, the creation of separate CRs does indicate the eventual intent
of having a separate TCK. There is very little difference in the
content of the two CRs.
2) The second
scenario you referenced is whether Open Liberty plans to submit a separate
CR for EJB compliance. Given the upcoming deadline, our only interest
at this point is to be Full Platform and possibly Web Profile compliant.
For the announce date, we don't really care if we're listed on the
individual component pages (EJB, Servlet, JSF, etc). Eventually,
we will do this extra work and submit the additional CRs. But, our
first focus is to get Full Platform and Web Profile compliance.
I hope you can
see that these are two completely separate scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From:
David
Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
09/04/2019
08:26 PM
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Certification Requests for
Specifications with no TCK
Sent
by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Where we left this topic to day is
still unclear to me. Here's what I understood from today's call:
- Must GlassFish file a certification request with the EJB project: yes,
cause rules
- Must OpenLiberty file a certification request with the EJB project:
no, cause they don't want to
I've filed and approved a request on behalf of the GlassFish project so
my part is done:
- https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/ejb-api/issues/56
My primary position on today's call was we should be honest with ourselves
on if a rule is providing enough value to be worth it. IMO, rules
are a form of technical debt. When we say one thing and immediately
do another, it's a sign the debt isn't (yet) worth it.
My ambitions commonly outpace my actions, so it's something I aggressively
watch for. Probably still not enough :)
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Aug 26, 2019, at 5:42 PM, David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> We appear to have been inconsistently handling now we're supposed
to handle certification for Specifications with no TCK.
>
> Kevin filed for both the Spec and Platform:
>
> - https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/75
> - https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/19
>
> Arjan did it only for the Spec and not the Platform:
>
> - https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/52
>
> I did it only for the Platform and not the Spec:
>
> - https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/91
> - https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/36
>
> We should discuss this Wednesday. Open questions using Interceptor
as an example:
>
> - Is the Interceptor spec project, for example, supposed to evaluate
all the CTS results or just the interceptor tests?
> - If the full results, is the Interceptor project supposed now completely
understand full CTS certification requirements?
> - Can you call yourself Interceptor-certified if you pass just the
Interceptor tests?
> - What would it mean if say the Interceptor project rejected the full
CTS certification but the Platform accepted the same results?
> - What is the value this brings for the overhead it creates?
>
> For Managed Beans it is particularly odd as we're filling the same
request twice in the same project to be evaluated by the same people.
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
