up ... Le mer. 25 mai 2022 à 14:54, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> +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 >> > -- Jean-Louis
