| Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] Next TCK call |
“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.
Since you mention the spec committee, I will echo a bit of info about what the spec committee does with TCKs from https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/operations as others may not be aware:
"
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.
...
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.
fyi https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DF0T2hbJqDNsY0v_lYFKCz-ZgHPbnMUIu6mhmt5LCJU/edit contains the minutes from yesterdays Platform call which I will echo here for general info. Note that we discussed the below in 120 seconds and ran out of time as the call ended (will be discussed more next week I think):
"
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.
Brian
From: Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:37 AM
To: jakartaee-tck developer discussions <jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Brian Decker <bmdecker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] Next TCK call
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
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 4:52 PM Brian Decker via jakartaee-tck-dev <jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 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:
https://jakarta.ee/about/meeting_minutes/specification_committee/minutes-specification-february-8-2023.pdf contains the minutes from the Specificiation Committee call that voted to remove optional features that are not required by the Platform which I am pasting part of below:
"
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.”...
7 +1 / 1 0 / 0 -1 / 2 absent
This resolution passes"
Please do use the Platform call or Platform mailing list for discussing the optional vs required issue.
Scott
Brian
From: jakartaee-tck-dev <jakartaee-tck-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Scott Marlow via jakartaee-tck-dev
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 12:33 PM
To: jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [jakartaee-tck-dev] Next TCK call
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.
Scott
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev
_______________________________________________ jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev