> Well, I am rather curious, how this > TCK will look like ;) that's another point. The 330 is _very_ thin (others may say 'vague'). So we'd have to make sure that the TCK doesn't require anything which isn't defined in the spec itself.
LieGrue, strub --- On Mon, 9/14/09, Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:53 AM > Well, I am rather curious, how this > TCK will look like ;) > > But besides that I really would like to know, whether > jsr299 is gonna become > jsr330 compliant. The point with annotations is, they have > not any > behaviour, so it is just up to the environment to interpret > them. If the > same annotation types are used in different environments, > they should share > a common sense about there meaning and not just "reuse a > class which name > approximately matches the desired intention". If jsr299 can > not comply with > 330, I rather would like to see 330's annotations in jsr299 > being dropped > than being re(mis)used. > > On the other side... if jsr299 complies, I have not found > any argument why > jsr299 implementations should not also comply with jsr330's > TCK. > > br, Sven > > > > > 2009/9/14 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
