+1 after the discussion in the other thread and points Richard raised Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mer. 25 mai 2022 à 02:13, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a écrit : > here is my own +1 (binding) > > Le mer. 25 mai 2022 à 02:12, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> 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 >> > > > -- > Jean-Louis >
