Skip to main content

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

  • From: Mark Struberg <struberg@...>
  • To: "users@..." <users@...>
  • Cc: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@...>
  • Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?
  • Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:21:09 +0100 (BST)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.de; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=w6b0HxwIYQ31QoUM0hGTqHyHyXt0u0UiUV7MKt1/5GSSbxjz4x9onqsBrfaUoGRWH29cLeAksw0IB/ma5ngSNEgsNrb6uSebj3DsDrbuX+n5dZ9whC0/pPUt769+mfIXYuAnAqMK8PgYZcEWS4R5IoNcGV2tO8EjZYvk0jp8Odw=;

Yes, you can challenge those TCK tests if they contradict the spec and a sane 
mind would call it broken or unspecified. Of course only if the exact 
behaviour was not already tested in old TCKs as well ;) Just create a JIRA.

The JavaEE6 WebProfile spec e.g. explicitely says in WP2.3  that only WAR 
files need to be supported, but the TCK probably also seems to test EAR 
deployment. 
Or at least that's what I've heard others saying that the TCK does, because 
we are still not allowed to talk about many of the TCKs because they have a 
clause in the TCK license which forbids us to talk about their details in 
public. This is really a pain and the next round of JCP upgrade should not 
only address JSRs but only their TCK licenses, pretty please!

LieGrue,
strub




>________________________________
> From: arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@...>
>To: users <users@...> 
>Cc: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@...> 
>Sent: Sunday, 20 October 2013, 23:34
>Subject: [javaee-spec users] How can serious TCK issues be addressed?
> 
>
>
>Hi,
>
>
>I wonder if there is any procedure to address potentially serious defects or 
>omissions in the TCK for a given Java EE specification.
>
>
>Hypothetically, suppose that the TCK for JSF tested a bunch of things, but 
>did not test the most basic thing (that e.g. JSF actually rendered 
>something), or that e.g. JPA would actually be able to persist anything, or 
>Bean Validation would actually be able to validate, etc.
>
>
>If I'm not mistaken it's possible for serious spec issues to be corrected 
>with an errata, but how does this work for the TCK? Can this be updated 
>during the life time of a spec version, and if so what would this mean for 
>products that have already been certified using an older version of the TCK?
>
>
>Kind regards,
>Arjan Tijms
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[javaee-spec users] How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

arjan tijms 10/20/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

Mark Struberg 10/21/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

arjan tijms 10/21/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

Bill Shannon 10/21/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

Bill Shannon 10/21/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

Mark Struberg 10/21/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

Bill Shannon 10/21/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

arjan tijms 10/21/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

Bill Shannon 10/21/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

arjan tijms 10/22/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

Bill Shannon 10/22/2013

[javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?

Pete Muir 10/22/2013
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close