[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,
> 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!