Oki, sorry for not being specific enough. I'll try to rephrase what I mean:
If we pass the open JSR-303 TCK, then we can claim to be 'JSR-303 compatible' and 'successfully passed the JSR-303 TCK'. But for calling us 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303 certified' then we would of course need to go the official oracle route. makes sense? LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote: > From: David Jencks <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 11:04 PM > > On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > isn't the JSR-303 ASL-2 licensed [1]? > > > > So I don't think we need to wait for any special > Oracle agreement! > > > > If you like, then I could ping Emmanuel, but usually > the latest TCK is available in the jboss maven repo. > > I think it makes sense to run both for now. Since its > a jcp managed spec, to claim compliance, I think we have > to run the tck from the official jcp channels, which, > unless we hear something different from Oracle, is Oracle. > > Can we put the choice of tck in a couple profiles? > > david jencks > > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > [1] > > http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/ > > > > > > --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Donald Woods <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> From: Donald Woods <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 - > /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 10:14 PM > >> Hopefully Kevan will chime in too, > >> but it's my understanding that we > >> have to pass the BVAL TCK as provided by Oracle > under the > >> Oracle/ASF NDA > >> in order to claim we're certified.... > >> > >> During daily testing, I use the TCK files > downloaded from > >> the JBoss > >> repo. Before we release the Apache BVAL > artifacts, I > >> always run the > >> release artifacts against the TCK as provided by > Oracle. > >> > >> > >> -Donald > >> > >> > >> On 10/1/10 2:14 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > >>> > >>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Donald Woods > wrote: > >>> > >>>> The current BVAL TCK from Oracle that we > have to > >> certify with is > >>>> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which uses > the > >> 1.0.3.GA level of the API. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Apparently I am not fully cognizant of the > TCK-related > >> aspects of the JCP process. > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK > >> says: > >>> TBD - Need to ask if we must use > the > >> Sun/Oracle provided TCK for final certification > testing.... > >>> > >>> Have there been further developments in this > >> regard? It was my impression that a spec > >> implementation must simply pass the TCK supplied > by the spec > >> lead. I had no idea there was both an Oracle > TCK and a > >> JBoss TCK. Where I can learn more about > certification > >> as it applies to this JSR and our efforts? > >>> > >>>> If you look at the TCK that gets > downloaded during > >> the TCK build, those > >>>> files also download the 1.0.3.GA level of > the API > >> and matches the > >>>> distribution as provided by Oracle. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I honestly don't see where you see this. > I don't > >> see any indication of it in > bval-tck/target/dependency/lib > >> or in the tck POM. > >>> > >>>> I haven't looked at the 1.0.4 level yet, > so is > >> there something in there > >>>> that we need? What changes were > introduced? > >>>> > >>> > >>> My lack of understanding of the issues simply > led me > >> to believe that the more recent release of the > spec we could > >> pass, the better. In particular I had hoped > that there > >> might be a difference in TCK versions with regard > to my > >> allegations on the incorrectness of the RI > implementation of > >> the Path interface. > >>> > >>> -Matt > >>> > >>>> > >>>> -Donald > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Donald > Woods > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Matt, the latest TCK drop from > Oracle is > >> 1.0.3, so I'd rather not move > >>>>>> up until we have a newer TCK level > that > >> matches..... > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm fine with whatever the community > decides, > >> of course, but can you explain the above? > I'm afraid I > >> don't understand... > >>>>> > >>>>> -Matt > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Donald > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM, [email protected] > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> Author: mbenson > >>>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 29 01:53:36 > 2010 > >>>>>>> New Revision: 1002445 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev > >>>>>>> Log: > >>>>>>> upgrade to tck version > 1.0.4.GA > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Modified: > >>>>>>> > incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Modified: > >> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml > >>>>>>> URL: > >>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff > >>>>>>> > >> > ============================================================================== > >>>>>>> --- > >> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml (original) > >>>>>>> +++ > >> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml Wed Sep 29 > 01:53:36 > >> 2010 > >>>>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ > >>>>>>> > > >> <dependency> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId> > >>>>>>> - > > >> > >> <version>1.0.3.GA</version> > >>>>>>> + > > >> > >> <version>1.0.4.GA</version> > >>>>>>> > > >> > </dependency> > >>>>>>> > > >> <dependency> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
