imo we should always aim to pass the latest available (and known good) TCK.

Please note that there are often some known issues _inside_ some TCK due to 
over-interpretation of the spec wording, differences between the spec wording 
and the spec-published javadoc (which has higher prio), etc.

So taking the latest available (and reporting any problems back to the EG) is 
always a good thing imo.

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Fri, 1/14/11, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Matt Benson <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 9:12 PM
> Resurrecting this thread:
>   While it may be possible, as David suggests, to
> manage different TCK
> versions with Maven profiles, the point will become moot
> after the
> release of the 1.0.5 version of the
> TCK:   due to
> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12
> a
> JSR303 implementation will realistically be able to pass a
> TCK <
> v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not both.  My personal
> preference is to make
> Apache Bean Validation conform to the spec and thus the
> later version
> of the TCK.  Can we take a basic poll as to the
> general preference of
> the team?
> 
> Matt
> 
> On 10/4/10, Gerhard <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > i agree with mark.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>
> >
> >> 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>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 



Reply via email to