> But if the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible > implementation must also pass the JSR-330 TCK
right, that's exactly what I'd like to know. It's not about OWB, but more a question to the 299 EG. Have they mentioned anything yet? LieGrue, strub --- On Mon, 9/14/09, Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:49 AM > Folks, > > We have been implementing the JSR-299 specification not > JSR-330. So we have to pass the JSR-299 TCK. But if > the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible implementation > must also pass the JSR-330 TCK, then it may necessary ti > implement it. > > --Gurkan > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:43:10 PM > Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK > > IMHO, yes. As long as this JSR is accepted in JCP we should > comply > with it to respect and the layered dependency on such > standard > dependency injection specs. As long as we are providing a > dependency > injection service so IMHO we should comply with this > specs. > > But the question now, I think, is when we are going to be > fully > compliant with it ? I mean we have to discuss this point. > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for > JSR-330. > > > > My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330 > compliant or if we only use the same annotations to have > some 'basic' similarity. > > > > So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply > with this TCK or only with the 299er suite? > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks > - Mohammad Nour > - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour > ---- > "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you > must keep moving" > - Albert Einstein > > > >
