Hi,

I don't know 'what' guarantee tck compilance  but i did a build some
minutes ago using java 8.

And on eclipse i use a quickfix to automatic implement unimplemented
methods just to not get compilation problems.

But it is my question too, that means "Tck OK" ?

mvn clean install -Ptck11

[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Reactor Summary:
[INFO]
[INFO] Apache BVal :: bval-parent (Parent POM) ........... SUCCESS [3.071s]
[INFO] Apache BVal :: bval-core .......................... SUCCESS [3.208s]
[INFO] Apache BVal :: bval-xstream (optional) ............ SUCCESS [2.496s]
[INFO] Apache BVal :: bval-jsr ........................... SUCCESS [9.005s]
[INFO] Apache BVal :: bval-json (optional) ............... SUCCESS [2.399s]
[INFO] Apache BVal :: bval-extras (optional) ............. SUCCESS [2.035s]
[INFO] Apache BVal :: bval-tck11 (TCK Runner) ............ SUCCESS [38.128s]
[INFO] Apache BVal :: org.apache.bval.bundle ............. SUCCESS [0.704s]
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 1:01.535s
[INFO] Finished at: Wed Apr 16 18:35:50 BRT 2014
[INFO] Final Memory: 95M/420M
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------
http://eprogramming.github.io



On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Michael Blyakher <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I haven't heard back on this question. Is there someone out there that can
> shed any information on the 1.1 branch tck compliance?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Michael Blyakher <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A while back it was reported that the bval implementation in the 1.1
>> branch was tck compliant (
>> http://bval.apache.org/board-reports/2013-09.html). Does the tck that
>> was run against this implementation test CDI integration as well?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>
>

<<inline: 01.png>>

Reply via email to