I always find it better when we can keep backward compatibility for users. But this is a major version and I'm not a big fan of cheap system properties.
If we think it's not good, we should create a challenge to get it fixed in the spec + TCK. Otherwise, I would keep it the way it is. If it breaks users and we want to help them out, it's still time to add the system property or a better configuration option and do a maintenance release. I'd go lazy instead of eager considering it's a major version. Meanwhile, I'd create an issue on the TCK + Spec Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 13:21, Zowalla, Richard < richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit : > Romain mentioned the idea (via Slack) of introducing a (cheap) system > property, which a user can specifiy to get back the old behaviour. > > If we want to follow the compatibility appraoch, we should add that > flag as the spec / RI is really unclear. > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 13:01 +0200 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau: > > I conclude the same thing thanks your pointers so back to the > > question: do we want to maintain the compat for our user base, do we > > want to align on the random spec behavior or do we don't care? > > Indeed I'm always in first team, in particular there since it will be > > deprecated so the least we touch the best it is but guess it is a 50- > > 50 case in terms of actual points :s. > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > > > Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 12:57, Zowalla, Richard < > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit : > > > The test in question is > > > > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaf-tck/blob/2.0.1/tests/api/javasoft/sqe/tests/jakarta/activation/ActivationDataFlavor/normalizeMimeTypeParameter_Test.java > > > > > > which expects the plain parameter value instead of > > > "parameter=value" as > > > a return value. > > > > > > The JavaDoc is also not quite clear about it: > > > > > > > https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/apidocs/jakarta.activation/jakarta/activation/activationdataflavor#normalizeMimeTypeParameter(java.lang.String,java.lang.String) > > > > > > with "This method is called for each parameter name/value pair and > > > should return the normalized representation of the > > > parameterValue.". > > > > > > The spec document itself > > > > https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/jakarta-activation-spec-2.0.html > > > doesn't mention anything about it. > > > > > > Guess it is a relict from java.awt.DataFlavour (also @Deprecated > > > there) > > > to keep compatibility after removing the references to it. > > > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 12:42 +0200 schrieb Romain Manni- > > > Bucau: > > > > Hmm, before that the question is "are the TCK spec compliant", a > > > lot > > > > have a reference in the spec we maybe missed, do you have some > > > > pointers on them? If we were wrong let's fix it, if the TCK are > > > wrong > > > > then maybe ignore the TCK? > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 12:33, Zowalla, Richard < > > > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit : > > > > > There is a TCK test regarding normalizeMimeTypeParameter which > > > > > broke with the current impl of normalizeMimeTypeParameter > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I adjusted it but agree that it is mit really > > > specified. > > > > > Question would be, if it is "ok" to fail specific tests of the > > > TCK. > > > > > > > > > > Gruß > > > > > Richard > > > > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2022 11:53:37 > > > > > An: dev@geronimo.apache.org > > > > > Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > Not voting negatively but seems we > > > > > broke normalizeMimeTypeParameter (I guess copying the RI?) and > > > I'm > > > > > not sure it should be done. > > > > > From my understanding this part is not well specified and > > > highly > > > > > depends on the impl but I don't see a reson to break existing > > > > > consumers which I always favor in regards of being aligned on > > > the > > > > > RI. > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 11:45, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> a écrit : > > > > > > Here we go > > > > > > > > > > > > We now pass all TCK and signature tests. Thanks Richard. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is essentially the same as the M1 David did last week > > > but > > > > > > with the fixes for compliance (See GERONIMO-6832) > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the link for sources > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/activation_2.0_spec/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the svn tag > > > > > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_2.0_spec-1.0.0/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the staging repo > > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1155 > > > > > > > > > > > > Please vote to approve this release: > > > > > > [ ] +1 Approve the release > > > > > > [ ] 0 Abstain (please provide specific comments) > > > > > > [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific > > > > > > comments) > > > > > > > > > > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > -- Jean-Louis
