+1 for the latest TCK too. LieGrue, strub
--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - > /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 7:43 PM > +1 for using the latest official > version. > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2011/6/15 Matt Benson <[email protected]> > > > jsr303-tck v1.0.5.GA came out today. This > question is still open. I > > remind the group that one codebase *cannot* > simultaneously pass a TCK > > < v1.0.5 and one >= v1.0.5. > > > > Matt > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Matt Benson <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > I feel like we're going in circles, but I feel > like the clouds may be > > breaking since you've mentioned "as part of our Java > EE 6 projects." Am I > > to understand that this is the context in which "the > TCK provided by Oracle" > > manages to trump that provided by the spec lead? > My next question is then > > whether we have any recourse to seek an updated TCK > from Oracle? > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > > > >> 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> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >
