Is there any interest to vote on this one? Le lun. 30 mai 2022 à 16:10, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 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 > -- Jean-Louis
