jsr348
  1. jsr348
  2. JSR348-15

1.4 - TCK should be freely available for users to run and verify their implementation of choice

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      >> Users of an implementation should be able to verify compatability of an implementation by running the tck themselves. This is especially critical as mistrust of the JCP has grown over the past years.

      It is counter to the nature of software development, transparency, and trust, that users be forced to use a technology for which they cannot run the tests and verify compliance, thus empowering them to improve the software by submitting issue reports with specific references to compatability with their use cases.

      --Jason

        Activity

        Hide
        lincolnbaxter added a comment -

        Process Doc Section 1.4

        Show
        lincolnbaxter added a comment - Process Doc Section 1.4
        Hide
        lightguard added a comment -

        What is currently in the Process Document would allow an implementer to discuss with users about the TCK, but the conversation would be a little odd:

        User: "I think I found a bug, regarding section 5.1.2 of the spec."
        Implementor: "Okay, the TCK has that covered by a test though, so it should work."
        U: "Great, where's the test so I can verify?"
        I: "Sorry, can't give that to you"
        U: ".... okay, .... I'm um write a ticket I guess. I would be much easier if I could run the test, or contribute it back to it."
        I: "Sorry, that's not allowed by the TCK licensing."
        U: "Well, thanks for your time anyway."

        Or something similar. Talking about the TCK without both parties being able to at least run the TCK isn't all that helpful.

        Show
        lightguard added a comment - What is currently in the Process Document would allow an implementer to discuss with users about the TCK, but the conversation would be a little odd: User: "I think I found a bug, regarding section 5.1.2 of the spec." Implementor: "Okay, the TCK has that covered by a test though, so it should work." U: "Great, where's the test so I can verify?" I: "Sorry, can't give that to you" U: ".... okay, .... I'm um write a ticket I guess. I would be much easier if I could run the test, or contribute it back to it." I: "Sorry, that's not allowed by the TCK licensing." U: "Well, thanks for your time anyway." Or something similar. Talking about the TCK without both parties being able to at least run the TCK isn't all that helpful.
        Hide
        lincolnbaxter added a comment -

        These ideas were drafted by an independent group reviewing the Early Draft from June 21, 2011 - apologies for out-of-date issues.

        Show
        lincolnbaxter added a comment - These ideas were drafted by an independent group reviewing the Early Draft from June 21, 2011 - apologies for out-of-date issues.
        Hide
        karianna added a comment -

        This issue is too complex for JSR-348 and will be discussed under 'JSR.next 2' where licensing and TCK issues will be thrashed out.

        Show
        karianna added a comment - This issue is too complex for JSR-348 and will be discussed under 'JSR.next 2' where licensing and TCK issues will be thrashed out.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        Closing this, since TCK licensing issues are on the list for JSR2

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - Closing this, since TCK licensing issues are on the list for JSR2

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            lincolnbaxter
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: