I think this way we have to think how we are going to support JSR-330 in OWB and how not to make both JSR(s) conflict with each other while implementing OWB.
Is there a way in JCP to make like a co-ordination board to co-ordinate between one or more JSR, or JSR-299 should make some changes - for one more time :S - to explain how to comply with JSR-330 ? On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Got answers from Pete: > > * JSR-299 _IS_ JSR-330 compliant > * the JSR-299 TCK will include the 330 TCK _only_ as _textual_ requirement > and not as technical include. > * the ref guide will say "to be 299 compliant you must pass the 330 TCK and > the 299 TCK" > > > 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, 12:15 PM >> >>>Have they mentioned >> anything yet? >> Not so far. >> >> --Gurkan >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:55:07 PM >> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK >> >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > > -- 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
