Currently, 1.0.3.GA is the latest version we have from Oracle for the ASF to use as part of our Java EE 6 projects. Until we get an updated version, we need to maintain compliance with that level. We could create a 1.0.x maintenance branch for the 1.0.3 TCK and then upgrade trunk to >= 1.0.5.
-Donald On 1/14/11 4:39 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > 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> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > >
