Skip to main content

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

  • From: Mark Struberg <struberg@...>
  • To: "users@..." <users@...>
  • Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?
  • Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:55:02 +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:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=lv99oDInGd1j3Kc5lTvZtee5gFWqQMK5MO/6yJpQijJldrELWhkjJKGqGQIhj9UrKuXOrDD8gP8mK0qZmFj794RrBXFC3jgSsHDPsXthQpZIu5+Lm/aWUw7zMipEgh+wRymNEgMAvkqVXyCOe7/l6BldGE9B5cPiluzX4eIwWBw=;



Oh that's great news! 

Somehow I did not noticed that change, but it's really a great move forward!

txs and LieGrue,
strub





>________________________________
> From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@...>
>To: Mark Struberg <struberg@...>; "users@..." <users@...> 
>Sent: Monday, 21 October 2013, 20:22
>Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: How can serious TCK issues be addressed?
> 
>
>
>The confidentiality restriction you refer to was removed in the latest 
>version of the JCP, and should not be present in the current TCK licenses.  
>The TCK code is still proprietary, but you can talk about TCK results.
>
>Mark Struberg wrote on 10/20/13 11:21 PM:
>
>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!
>>
>


[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

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

Edward Burns 10/23/2013

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

arjan tijms 10/23/2013

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

Pete Muir 10/23/2013

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

arjan tijms 10/24/2013
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close