You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bval.apache.org by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> on 2011/01/14 22:12:17 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Resurrecting this thread:
While it may be possible, as David suggests, to manage different TCK
versions with Maven profiles, the point will become moot after the
release of the 1.0.5 version of the TCK: due to
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12 a
JSR303 implementation will realistically be able to pass a TCK <
v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not both. My personal preference is to make
Apache Bean Validation conform to the spec and thus the later version
of the TCK. Can we take a basic poll as to the general preference of
the team?
Matt
On 10/4/10, Gerhard <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i agree with mark.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
>> Oki, sorry for not being specific enough. I'll try to rephrase what I
>> mean:
>>
>> If we pass the open JSR-303 TCK, then we can claim to be 'JSR-303
>> compatible' and 'successfully passed the JSR-303 TCK'.
>>
>> But for calling us 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303 certified' then we would of
>> course need to go the official oracle route.
>>
>> makes sense?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>> > To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 11:04 PM
>> >
>> > On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> >
>> > > isn't the JSR-303 ASL-2 licensed [1]?
>> > >
>> > > So I don't think we need to wait for any special
>> > Oracle agreement!
>> > >
>> > > If you like, then I could ping Emmanuel, but usually
>> > the latest TCK is available in the jboss maven repo.
>> >
>> > I think it makes sense to run both for now. Since its
>> > a jcp managed spec, to claim compliance, I think we have
>> > to run the tck from the official jcp channels, which,
>> > unless we hear something different from Oracle, is Oracle.
>> >
>> > Can we put the choice of tck in a couple profiles?
>> >
>> > david jencks
>> >
>> > >
>> > > LieGrue,
>> > > strub
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> From: Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
>> > >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
>> > /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>> > >> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 10:14 PM
>> > >> Hopefully Kevan will chime in too,
>> > >> but it's my understanding that we
>> > >> have to pass the BVAL TCK as provided by Oracle
>> > under the
>> > >> Oracle/ASF NDA
>> > >> in order to claim we're certified....
>> > >>
>> > >> During daily testing, I use the TCK files
>> > downloaded from
>> > >> the JBoss
>> > >> repo. Before we release the Apache BVAL
>> > artifacts, I
>> > >> always run the
>> > >> release artifacts against the TCK as provided by
>> > Oracle.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> -Donald
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On 10/1/10 2:14 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Donald Woods
>> > wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> The current BVAL TCK from Oracle that we
>> > have to
>> > >> certify with is
>> > >>>> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which uses
>> > the
>> > >> 1.0.3.GA level of the API.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Apparently I am not fully cognizant of the
>> > TCK-related
>> > >> aspects of the JCP process.
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK
>> > >> says:
>> > >>> TBD - Need to ask if we must use
>> > the
>> > >> Sun/Oracle provided TCK for final certification
>> > testing....
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Have there been further developments in this
>> > >> regard? It was my impression that a spec
>> > >> implementation must simply pass the TCK supplied
>> > by the spec
>> > >> lead. I had no idea there was both an Oracle
>> > TCK and a
>> > >> JBoss TCK. Where I can learn more about
>> > certification
>> > >> as it applies to this JSR and our efforts?
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> If you look at the TCK that gets
>> > downloaded during
>> > >> the TCK build, those
>> > >>>> files also download the 1.0.3.GA level of
>> > the API
>> > >> and matches the
>> > >>>> distribution as provided by Oracle.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I honestly don't see where you see this.
>> > I don't
>> > >> see any indication of it in
>> > bval-tck/target/dependency/lib
>> > >> or in the tck POM.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> I haven't looked at the 1.0.4 level yet,
>> > so is
>> > >> there something in there
>> > >>>> that we need? What changes were
>> > introduced?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> My lack of understanding of the issues simply
>> > led me
>> > >> to believe that the more recent release of the
>> > spec we could
>> > >> pass, the better. In particular I had hoped
>> > that there
>> > >> might be a difference in TCK versions with regard
>> > to my
>> > >> allegations on the incorrectness of the RI
>> > implementation of
>> > >> the Path interface.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> -Matt
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> -Donald
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Donald
>> > Woods
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Matt, the latest TCK drop from
>> > Oracle is
>> > >> 1.0.3, so I'd rather not move
>> > >>>>>> up until we have a newer TCK level
>> > that
>> > >> matches.....
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> I'm fine with whatever the community
>> > decides,
>> > >> of course, but can you explain the above?
>> > I'm afraid I
>> > >> don't understand...
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> -Matt
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> -Donald
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM, mbenson@apache.org
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> Author: mbenson
>> > >>>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 29 01:53:36
>> > 2010
>> > >>>>>>> New Revision: 1002445
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev
>> > >>>>>>> Log:
>> > >>>>>>> upgrade to tck version
>> > 1.0.4.GA
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Modified:
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Modified:
>> > >> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>> URL:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>
>> >
>> ==============================================================================
>> > >>>>>>> ---
>> > >> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml (original)
>> > >>>>>>> +++
>> > >> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml Wed Sep 29
>> > 01:53:36
>> > >> 2010
>> > >>>>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@
>> > >>>>>>>
>> >
>> > >> <dependency>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId>
>> > >>>>>>> -
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >> <version>1.0.3.GA</version>
>> > >>>>>>> +
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >> <version>1.0.4.GA</version>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> >
>> > >>
>> > </dependency>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> >
>> > >> <dependency>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
+1 for the latest TCK too.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org, gudnabrsam@gmail.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 7:43 PM
> +1 for using the latest official
> version.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2011/6/15 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>
> > jsr303-tck v1.0.5.GA came out today. This
> question is still open. I
> > remind the group that one codebase *cannot*
> simultaneously pass a TCK
> > < v1.0.5 and one >= v1.0.5.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I feel like we're going in circles, but I feel
> like the clouds may be
> > breaking since you've mentioned "as part of our Java
> EE 6 projects." Am I
> > to understand that this is the context in which "the
> TCK provided by Oracle"
> > manages to trump that provided by the spec lead?
> My next question is then
> > whether we have any recourse to seek an updated TCK
> from Oracle?
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > On Jan 23, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> > >
> > >> Currently, 1.0.3.GA is the latest version we
> have from Oracle for the
> > >> ASF to use as part of our Java EE 6
> projects. Until we get an updated
> > >> version, we need to maintain compliance with
> that level. We could
> > >> create a 1.0.x maintenance branch for the
> 1.0.3 TCK and then upgrade
> > >> trunk to >= 1.0.5.
> > >>
> > >> -Donald
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1/14/11 4:39 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > >>> imo we should always aim to pass the
> latest available (and known good)
> > TCK.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please note that there are often some
> known issues _inside_ some TCK
> > due to over-interpretation of the spec wording,
> differences between the spec
> > wording and the spec-published javadoc (which has
> higher prio), etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> So taking the latest available (and
> reporting any problems back to the
> > EG) is always a good thing imo.
> > >>>
> > >>> LieGrue,
> > >>> strub
> > >>>
> > >>> --- On Fri, 1/14/11, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
> > /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> > >>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 9:12
> PM
> > >>>> Resurrecting this thread:
> > >>>> While it may be possible, as
> David suggests, to
> > >>>> manage different TCK
> > >>>> versions with Maven profiles, the
> point will become moot
> > >>>> after the
> > >>>> release of the 1.0.5 version of the
> > >>>> TCK: due to
> > >>>> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> JSR303 implementation will
> realistically be able to pass a
> > >>>> TCK <
> > >>>> v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not
> both. My personal
> > >>>> preference is to make
> > >>>> Apache Bean Validation conform to the
> spec and thus the
> > >>>> later version
> > >>>> of the TCK. Can we take a basic
> poll as to the
> > >>>> general preference of
> > >>>> the team?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Matt
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 10/4/10, Gerhard <ge...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> i agree with mark.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> regards,
> > >>>>> gerhard
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> http://www.irian.at
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> > >>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
> > >>>>> Courses in English and German
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Professional Support for Apache
> MyFaces
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Oki, sorry for not being
> specific enough. I'll try
> > >>>> to rephrase what I
> > >>>>>> mean:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If we pass the open JSR-303
> TCK, then we can claim
> > >>>> to be 'JSR-303
> > >>>>>> compatible' and 'successfully
> passed the JSR-303
> > >>>> TCK'.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But for calling us
> 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303
> > >>>> certified' then we would of
> > >>>>>> course need to go the
> official oracle route.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> makes sense?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>>>>> strub
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David
> Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit:
> r1002445 -
> > >>>>>>
> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> > >>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1,
> 2010, 11:04 PM
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22
> PM, Mark Struberg
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> isn't the JSR-303
> ASL-2 licensed [1]?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> So I don't think we
> need to wait for any
> > >>>> special
> > >>>>>>> Oracle agreement!
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> If you like, then I
> could ping Emmanuel,
> > >>>> but usually
> > >>>>>>> the latest TCK is
> available in the jboss
> > >>>> maven repo.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think it makes sense to
> run both for
> > >>>> now. Since its
> > >>>>>>> a jcp managed spec, to
> claim compliance, I
> > >>>> think we have
> > >>>>>>> to run the tck from
> the official jcp
> > >>>> channels, which,
> > >>>>>>> unless we hear something
> different from
> > >>>> Oracle, is Oracle.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Can we put the choice of
> tck in a couple
> > >>>> profiles?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> david jencks
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>>>>>>> strub
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>
> > http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10,
> Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> From: Donald
> Woods <dw...@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn
> commit: r1002445 -
> > >>>>>>>
> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> > >>>>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> Date: Friday,
> October 1, 2010, 10:14
> > >>>> PM
> > >>>>>>>>> Hopefully Kevan
> will chime in too,
> > >>>>>>>>> but it's my
> understanding that we
> > >>>>>>>>> have to pass the
> BVAL TCK as
> > >>>> provided by Oracle
> > >>>>>>> under the
> > >>>>>>>>> Oracle/ASF NDA
> > >>>>>>>>> in order to claim
> we're
> > >>>> certified....
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> During daily
> testing, I use the TCK
> > >>>> files
> > >>>>>>> downloaded from
> > >>>>>>>>> the JBoss
> > >>>>>>>>> repo.
> Before we release the
> > >>>> Apache BVAL
> > >>>>>>> artifacts, I
> > >>>>>>>>> always run the
> > >>>>>>>>> release artifacts
> against the TCK as
> > >>>> provided by
> > >>>>>>> Oracle.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> -Donald
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 2:14
> PM, Matt Benson
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1,
> 2010, at 12:26 PM,
> > >>>> Donald Woods
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> current BVAL TCK from
> > >>>> Oracle that we
> > >>>>>>> have to
> > >>>>>>>>> certify with is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which
> uses
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> 1.0.3.GA level of
> the API.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Apparently I
> am not fully
> > >>>> cognizant of the
> > >>>>>>> TCK-related
> > >>>>>>>>> aspects of the
> JCP process.
> > >>>>>>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK
> > >>>>>>>>> says:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> TBD - Need to ask
> > >>>> if we must use
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> Sun/Oracle
> provided TCK for final
> > >>>> certification
> > >>>>>>> testing....
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Have there
> been further
> > >>>> developments in this
> > >>>>>>>>> regard? It
> was my impression
> > >>>> that a spec
> > >>>>>>>>> implementation
> must simply pass the
> > >>>> TCK supplied
> > >>>>>>> by the spec
> > >>>>>>>>> lead. I had
> no idea there was
> > >>>> both an Oracle
> > >>>>>>> TCK and a
> > >>>>>>>>> JBoss TCK.
> Where I can learn
> > >>>> more about
> > >>>>>>> certification
> > >>>>>>>>> as it applies to
> this JSR and our
> > >>>> efforts?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> If you
> look at the TCK that
> > >>>> gets
> > >>>>>>> downloaded during
> > >>>>>>>>> the TCK build,
> those
> > >>>>>>>>>>> files
> also download the
> > >>>> 1.0.3.GA level of
> > >>>>>>> the API
> > >>>>>>>>> and matches the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> distribution as provided by
> > >>>> Oracle.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I honestly
> don't see where you
> > >>>> see this.
> > >>>>>>> I don't
> > >>>>>>>>> see any
> indication of it in
> > >>>>>>>
> bval-tck/target/dependency/lib
> > >>>>>>>>> or in the tck
> POM.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I haven't
> looked at the
> > >>>> 1.0.4 level yet,
> > >>>>>>> so is
> > >>>>>>>>> there something
> in there
> > >>>>>>>>>>> that we
> need? What
> > >>>> changes were
> > >>>>>>> introduced?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> My lack of
> understanding of the
> > >>>> issues simply
> > >>>>>>> led me
> > >>>>>>>>> to believe that
> the more recent
> > >>>> release of the
> > >>>>>>> spec we could
> > >>>>>>>>> pass, the
> better. In
> > >>>> particular I had hoped
> > >>>>>>> that there
> > >>>>>>>>> might be a
> difference in TCK
> > >>>> versions with regard
> > >>>>>>> to my
> > >>>>>>>>> allegations on
> the incorrectness of
> > >>>> the RI
> > >>>>>>> implementation of
> > >>>>>>>>> the Path
> interface.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> -Matt
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On
> 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt
> > >>>> Benson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On
> Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18
> > >>>> AM, Donald
> > >>>>>>> Woods
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Matt, the latest TCK
> > >>>> drop from
> > >>>>>>> Oracle is
> > >>>>>>>>> 1.0.3, so I'd
> rather not move
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> up until we have a
> > >>>> newer TCK level
> > >>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>> matches.....
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
> fine with whatever
> > >>>> the community
> > >>>>>>> decides,
> > >>>>>>>>> of course, but
> can you explain the
> > >>>> above?
> > >>>>>>> I'm afraid I
> > >>>>>>>>> don't
> understand...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> -Matt
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> -Donald
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM,
> > >>>> mbenson@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Author: mbenson
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Date: Wed Sep 29
> > >>>> 01:53:36
> > >>>>>>> 2010
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> New
> Revision:
> > >>>> 1002445
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Log:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> upgrade to tck
> > >>>> version
> > >>>>>>> 1.0.4.GA
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Modified:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Modified:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> URL:
> > >>>>>>
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> ==============================================================================
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> ---
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> (original)
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> +++
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> Wed Sep 29
> > >>>>>>> 01:53:36
> > >>>>>>>>> 2010
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@
> -92,7 +92,7
> > >>>> @@
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> <dependency>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <version>1.0.3.GA</version>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <version>1.0.4.GA</version>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> </dependency>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> <dependency>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
+1 for using the latest official version.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2011/6/15 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> jsr303-tck v1.0.5.GA came out today. This question is still open. I
> remind the group that one codebase *cannot* simultaneously pass a TCK
> < v1.0.5 and one >= v1.0.5.
>
> Matt
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I feel like we're going in circles, but I feel like the clouds may be
> breaking since you've mentioned "as part of our Java EE 6 projects." Am I
> to understand that this is the context in which "the TCK provided by Oracle"
> manages to trump that provided by the spec lead? My next question is then
> whether we have any recourse to seek an updated TCK from Oracle?
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Jan 23, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> >
> >> Currently, 1.0.3.GA is the latest version we have from Oracle for the
> >> ASF to use as part of our Java EE 6 projects. Until we get an updated
> >> version, we need to maintain compliance with that level. We could
> >> create a 1.0.x maintenance branch for the 1.0.3 TCK and then upgrade
> >> trunk to >= 1.0.5.
> >>
> >> -Donald
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/14/11 4:39 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >>> imo we should always aim to pass the latest available (and known good)
> TCK.
> >>>
> >>> Please note that there are often some known issues _inside_ some TCK
> due to over-interpretation of the spec wording, differences between the spec
> wording and the spec-published javadoc (which has higher prio), etc.
> >>>
> >>> So taking the latest available (and reporting any problems back to the
> EG) is always a good thing imo.
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>> --- On Fri, 1/14/11, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 9:12 PM
> >>>> Resurrecting this thread:
> >>>> While it may be possible, as David suggests, to
> >>>> manage different TCK
> >>>> versions with Maven profiles, the point will become moot
> >>>> after the
> >>>> release of the 1.0.5 version of the
> >>>> TCK: due to
> >>>> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12
> >>>> a
> >>>> JSR303 implementation will realistically be able to pass a
> >>>> TCK <
> >>>> v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not both. My personal
> >>>> preference is to make
> >>>> Apache Bean Validation conform to the spec and thus the
> >>>> later version
> >>>> of the TCK. Can we take a basic poll as to the
> >>>> general preference of
> >>>> the team?
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/4/10, Gerhard <ge...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> i agree with mark.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> regards,
> >>>>> gerhard
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.irian.at
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
> >>>>> Courses in English and German
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Oki, sorry for not being specific enough. I'll try
> >>>> to rephrase what I
> >>>>>> mean:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we pass the open JSR-303 TCK, then we can claim
> >>>> to be 'JSR-303
> >>>>>> compatible' and 'successfully passed the JSR-303
> >>>> TCK'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But for calling us 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303
> >>>> certified' then we would of
> >>>>>> course need to go the official oracle route.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> makes sense?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LieGrue,
> >>>>>> strub
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
> >>>>>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 11:04 PM
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Mark Struberg
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> isn't the JSR-303 ASL-2 licensed [1]?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So I don't think we need to wait for any
> >>>> special
> >>>>>>> Oracle agreement!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you like, then I could ping Emmanuel,
> >>>> but usually
> >>>>>>> the latest TCK is available in the jboss
> >>>> maven repo.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think it makes sense to run both for
> >>>> now. Since its
> >>>>>>> a jcp managed spec, to claim compliance, I
> >>>> think we have
> >>>>>>> to run the tck from the official jcp
> >>>> channels, which,
> >>>>>>> unless we hear something different from
> >>>> Oracle, is Oracle.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we put the choice of tck in a couple
> >>>> profiles?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> david jencks
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> >>>>>>>> strub
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>
> http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
> >>>>>>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 10:14
> >>>> PM
> >>>>>>>>> Hopefully Kevan will chime in too,
> >>>>>>>>> but it's my understanding that we
> >>>>>>>>> have to pass the BVAL TCK as
> >>>> provided by Oracle
> >>>>>>> under the
> >>>>>>>>> Oracle/ASF NDA
> >>>>>>>>> in order to claim we're
> >>>> certified....
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> During daily testing, I use the TCK
> >>>> files
> >>>>>>> downloaded from
> >>>>>>>>> the JBoss
> >>>>>>>>> repo. Before we release the
> >>>> Apache BVAL
> >>>>>>> artifacts, I
> >>>>>>>>> always run the
> >>>>>>>>> release artifacts against the TCK as
> >>>> provided by
> >>>>>>> Oracle.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Donald
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 2:14 PM, Matt Benson
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:26 PM,
> >>>> Donald Woods
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The current BVAL TCK from
> >>>> Oracle that we
> >>>>>>> have to
> >>>>>>>>> certify with is
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which uses
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> 1.0.3.GA level of the API.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Apparently I am not fully
> >>>> cognizant of the
> >>>>>>> TCK-related
> >>>>>>>>> aspects of the JCP process.
> >>>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK
> >>>>>>>>> says:
> >>>>>>>>>> TBD - Need to ask
> >>>> if we must use
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> Sun/Oracle provided TCK for final
> >>>> certification
> >>>>>>> testing....
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Have there been further
> >>>> developments in this
> >>>>>>>>> regard? It was my impression
> >>>> that a spec
> >>>>>>>>> implementation must simply pass the
> >>>> TCK supplied
> >>>>>>> by the spec
> >>>>>>>>> lead. I had no idea there was
> >>>> both an Oracle
> >>>>>>> TCK and a
> >>>>>>>>> JBoss TCK. Where I can learn
> >>>> more about
> >>>>>>> certification
> >>>>>>>>> as it applies to this JSR and our
> >>>> efforts?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you look at the TCK that
> >>>> gets
> >>>>>>> downloaded during
> >>>>>>>>> the TCK build, those
> >>>>>>>>>>> files also download the
> >>>> 1.0.3.GA level of
> >>>>>>> the API
> >>>>>>>>> and matches the
> >>>>>>>>>>> distribution as provided by
> >>>> Oracle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I honestly don't see where you
> >>>> see this.
> >>>>>>> I don't
> >>>>>>>>> see any indication of it in
> >>>>>>> bval-tck/target/dependency/lib
> >>>>>>>>> or in the tck POM.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at the
> >>>> 1.0.4 level yet,
> >>>>>>> so is
> >>>>>>>>> there something in there
> >>>>>>>>>>> that we need? What
> >>>> changes were
> >>>>>>> introduced?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My lack of understanding of the
> >>>> issues simply
> >>>>>>> led me
> >>>>>>>>> to believe that the more recent
> >>>> release of the
> >>>>>>> spec we could
> >>>>>>>>> pass, the better. In
> >>>> particular I had hoped
> >>>>>>> that there
> >>>>>>>>> might be a difference in TCK
> >>>> versions with regard
> >>>>>>> to my
> >>>>>>>>> allegations on the incorrectness of
> >>>> the RI
> >>>>>>> implementation of
> >>>>>>>>> the Path interface.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Matt
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt
> >>>> Benson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18
> >>>> AM, Donald
> >>>>>>> Woods
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the latest TCK
> >>>> drop from
> >>>>>>> Oracle is
> >>>>>>>>> 1.0.3, so I'd rather not move
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up until we have a
> >>>> newer TCK level
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> matches.....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm fine with whatever
> >>>> the community
> >>>>>>> decides,
> >>>>>>>>> of course, but can you explain the
> >>>> above?
> >>>>>>> I'm afraid I
> >>>>>>>>> don't understand...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Matt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM,
> >>>> mbenson@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: mbenson
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 29
> >>>> 01:53:36
> >>>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision:
> >>>> 1002445
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade to tck
> >>>> version
> >>>>>>> 1.0.4.GA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL:
> >>>>>>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> ==============================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml (original)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml Wed Sep 29
> >>>>>>> 01:53:36
> >>>>>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7
> >>>> @@
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> <dependency>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> <version>1.0.3.GA</version>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> <version>1.0.4.GA</version>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> </dependency>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> <dependency>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
Re: TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
jsr303-tck v1.0.5.GA came out today. This question is still open. I
remind the group that one codebase *cannot* simultaneously pass a TCK
< v1.0.5 and one >= v1.0.5.
Matt
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I feel like we're going in circles, but I feel like the clouds may be breaking since you've mentioned "as part of our Java EE 6 projects." Am I to understand that this is the context in which "the TCK provided by Oracle" manages to trump that provided by the spec lead? My next question is then whether we have any recourse to seek an updated TCK from Oracle?
>
> Matt
>
> On Jan 23, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Currently, 1.0.3.GA is the latest version we have from Oracle for the
>> ASF to use as part of our Java EE 6 projects. Until we get an updated
>> version, we need to maintain compliance with that level. We could
>> create a 1.0.x maintenance branch for the 1.0.3 TCK and then upgrade
>> trunk to >= 1.0.5.
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> On 1/14/11 4:39 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> imo we should always aim to pass the latest available (and known good) TCK.
>>>
>>> Please note that there are often some known issues _inside_ some TCK due to over-interpretation of the spec wording, differences between the spec wording and the spec-published javadoc (which has higher prio), etc.
>>>
>>> So taking the latest available (and reporting any problems back to the EG) is always a good thing imo.
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 1/14/11, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 9:12 PM
>>>> Resurrecting this thread:
>>>> While it may be possible, as David suggests, to
>>>> manage different TCK
>>>> versions with Maven profiles, the point will become moot
>>>> after the
>>>> release of the 1.0.5 version of the
>>>> TCK: due to
>>>> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12
>>>> a
>>>> JSR303 implementation will realistically be able to pass a
>>>> TCK <
>>>> v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not both. My personal
>>>> preference is to make
>>>> Apache Bean Validation conform to the spec and thus the
>>>> later version
>>>> of the TCK. Can we take a basic poll as to the
>>>> general preference of
>>>> the team?
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>> On 10/4/10, Gerhard <ge...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> i agree with mark.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>>>
>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>>>>> Courses in English and German
>>>>>
>>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oki, sorry for not being specific enough. I'll try
>>>> to rephrase what I
>>>>>> mean:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we pass the open JSR-303 TCK, then we can claim
>>>> to be 'JSR-303
>>>>>> compatible' and 'successfully passed the JSR-303
>>>> TCK'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for calling us 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303
>>>> certified' then we would of
>>>>>> course need to go the official oracle route.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
>>>>>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 11:04 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Mark Struberg
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> isn't the JSR-303 ASL-2 licensed [1]?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I don't think we need to wait for any
>>>> special
>>>>>>> Oracle agreement!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you like, then I could ping Emmanuel,
>>>> but usually
>>>>>>> the latest TCK is available in the jboss
>>>> maven repo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it makes sense to run both for
>>>> now. Since its
>>>>>>> a jcp managed spec, to claim compliance, I
>>>> think we have
>>>>>>> to run the tck from the official jcp
>>>> channels, which,
>>>>>>> unless we hear something different from
>>>> Oracle, is Oracle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we put the choice of tck in a couple
>>>> profiles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
>>>>>>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 10:14
>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully Kevan will chime in too,
>>>>>>>>> but it's my understanding that we
>>>>>>>>> have to pass the BVAL TCK as
>>>> provided by Oracle
>>>>>>> under the
>>>>>>>>> Oracle/ASF NDA
>>>>>>>>> in order to claim we're
>>>> certified....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> During daily testing, I use the TCK
>>>> files
>>>>>>> downloaded from
>>>>>>>>> the JBoss
>>>>>>>>> repo. Before we release the
>>>> Apache BVAL
>>>>>>> artifacts, I
>>>>>>>>> always run the
>>>>>>>>> release artifacts against the TCK as
>>>> provided by
>>>>>>> Oracle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 2:14 PM, Matt Benson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:26 PM,
>>>> Donald Woods
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The current BVAL TCK from
>>>> Oracle that we
>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>> certify with is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which uses
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> 1.0.3.GA level of the API.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently I am not fully
>>>> cognizant of the
>>>>>>> TCK-related
>>>>>>>>> aspects of the JCP process.
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK
>>>>>>>>> says:
>>>>>>>>>> TBD - Need to ask
>>>> if we must use
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Sun/Oracle provided TCK for final
>>>> certification
>>>>>>> testing....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have there been further
>>>> developments in this
>>>>>>>>> regard? It was my impression
>>>> that a spec
>>>>>>>>> implementation must simply pass the
>>>> TCK supplied
>>>>>>> by the spec
>>>>>>>>> lead. I had no idea there was
>>>> both an Oracle
>>>>>>> TCK and a
>>>>>>>>> JBoss TCK. Where I can learn
>>>> more about
>>>>>>> certification
>>>>>>>>> as it applies to this JSR and our
>>>> efforts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you look at the TCK that
>>>> gets
>>>>>>> downloaded during
>>>>>>>>> the TCK build, those
>>>>>>>>>>> files also download the
>>>> 1.0.3.GA level of
>>>>>>> the API
>>>>>>>>> and matches the
>>>>>>>>>>> distribution as provided by
>>>> Oracle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I honestly don't see where you
>>>> see this.
>>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>>>> see any indication of it in
>>>>>>> bval-tck/target/dependency/lib
>>>>>>>>> or in the tck POM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at the
>>>> 1.0.4 level yet,
>>>>>>> so is
>>>>>>>>> there something in there
>>>>>>>>>>> that we need? What
>>>> changes were
>>>>>>> introduced?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My lack of understanding of the
>>>> issues simply
>>>>>>> led me
>>>>>>>>> to believe that the more recent
>>>> release of the
>>>>>>> spec we could
>>>>>>>>> pass, the better. In
>>>> particular I had hoped
>>>>>>> that there
>>>>>>>>> might be a difference in TCK
>>>> versions with regard
>>>>>>> to my
>>>>>>>>> allegations on the incorrectness of
>>>> the RI
>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>> the Path interface.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt
>>>> Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18
>>>> AM, Donald
>>>>>>> Woods
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the latest TCK
>>>> drop from
>>>>>>> Oracle is
>>>>>>>>> 1.0.3, so I'd rather not move
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up until we have a
>>>> newer TCK level
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> matches.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm fine with whatever
>>>> the community
>>>>>>> decides,
>>>>>>>>> of course, but can you explain the
>>>> above?
>>>>>>> I'm afraid I
>>>>>>>>> don't understand...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM,
>>>> mbenson@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: mbenson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 29
>>>> 01:53:36
>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision:
>>>> 1002445
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade to tck
>>>> version
>>>>>>> 1.0.4.GA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml Wed Sep 29
>>>>>>> 01:53:36
>>>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7
>>>> @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <version>1.0.3.GA</version>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <version>1.0.4.GA</version>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
TCK version/s compliance WAS Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
I feel like we're going in circles, but I feel like the clouds may be breaking since you've mentioned "as part of our Java EE 6 projects." Am I to understand that this is the context in which "the TCK provided by Oracle" manages to trump that provided by the spec lead? My next question is then whether we have any recourse to seek an updated TCK from Oracle?
Matt
On Jan 23, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Currently, 1.0.3.GA is the latest version we have from Oracle for the
> ASF to use as part of our Java EE 6 projects. Until we get an updated
> version, we need to maintain compliance with that level. We could
> create a 1.0.x maintenance branch for the 1.0.3 TCK and then upgrade
> trunk to >= 1.0.5.
>
> -Donald
>
>
> On 1/14/11 4:39 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> imo we should always aim to pass the latest available (and known good) TCK.
>>
>> Please note that there are often some known issues _inside_ some TCK due to over-interpretation of the spec wording, differences between the spec wording and the spec-published javadoc (which has higher prio), etc.
>>
>> So taking the latest available (and reporting any problems back to the EG) is always a good thing imo.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> --- On Fri, 1/14/11, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 9:12 PM
>>> Resurrecting this thread:
>>> While it may be possible, as David suggests, to
>>> manage different TCK
>>> versions with Maven profiles, the point will become moot
>>> after the
>>> release of the 1.0.5 version of the
>>> TCK: due to
>>> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12
>>> a
>>> JSR303 implementation will realistically be able to pass a
>>> TCK <
>>> v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not both. My personal
>>> preference is to make
>>> Apache Bean Validation conform to the spec and thus the
>>> later version
>>> of the TCK. Can we take a basic poll as to the
>>> general preference of
>>> the team?
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> On 10/4/10, Gerhard <ge...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> i agree with mark.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>>
>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>>>> Courses in English and German
>>>>
>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>
>>>>> Oki, sorry for not being specific enough. I'll try
>>> to rephrase what I
>>>>> mean:
>>>>>
>>>>> If we pass the open JSR-303 TCK, then we can claim
>>> to be 'JSR-303
>>>>> compatible' and 'successfully passed the JSR-303
>>> TCK'.
>>>>>
>>>>> But for calling us 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303
>>> certified' then we would of
>>>>> course need to go the official oracle route.
>>>>>
>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>> strub
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
>>>>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 11:04 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Mark Struberg
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> isn't the JSR-303 ASL-2 licensed [1]?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I don't think we need to wait for any
>>> special
>>>>>> Oracle agreement!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you like, then I could ping Emmanuel,
>>> but usually
>>>>>> the latest TCK is available in the jboss
>>> maven repo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it makes sense to run both for
>>> now. Since its
>>>>>> a jcp managed spec, to claim compliance, I
>>> think we have
>>>>>> to run the tck from the official jcp
>>> channels, which,
>>>>>> unless we hear something different from
>>> Oracle, is Oracle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we put the choice of tck in a couple
>>> profiles?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>> http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
>>>>>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 10:14
>>> PM
>>>>>>>> Hopefully Kevan will chime in too,
>>>>>>>> but it's my understanding that we
>>>>>>>> have to pass the BVAL TCK as
>>> provided by Oracle
>>>>>> under the
>>>>>>>> Oracle/ASF NDA
>>>>>>>> in order to claim we're
>>> certified....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> During daily testing, I use the TCK
>>> files
>>>>>> downloaded from
>>>>>>>> the JBoss
>>>>>>>> repo. Before we release the
>>> Apache BVAL
>>>>>> artifacts, I
>>>>>>>> always run the
>>>>>>>> release artifacts against the TCK as
>>> provided by
>>>>>> Oracle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 2:14 PM, Matt Benson
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:26 PM,
>>> Donald Woods
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The current BVAL TCK from
>>> Oracle that we
>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>> certify with is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which uses
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> 1.0.3.GA level of the API.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently I am not fully
>>> cognizant of the
>>>>>> TCK-related
>>>>>>>> aspects of the JCP process.
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK
>>>>>>>> says:
>>>>>>>>> TBD - Need to ask
>>> if we must use
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Sun/Oracle provided TCK for final
>>> certification
>>>>>> testing....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have there been further
>>> developments in this
>>>>>>>> regard? It was my impression
>>> that a spec
>>>>>>>> implementation must simply pass the
>>> TCK supplied
>>>>>> by the spec
>>>>>>>> lead. I had no idea there was
>>> both an Oracle
>>>>>> TCK and a
>>>>>>>> JBoss TCK. Where I can learn
>>> more about
>>>>>> certification
>>>>>>>> as it applies to this JSR and our
>>> efforts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you look at the TCK that
>>> gets
>>>>>> downloaded during
>>>>>>>> the TCK build, those
>>>>>>>>>> files also download the
>>> 1.0.3.GA level of
>>>>>> the API
>>>>>>>> and matches the
>>>>>>>>>> distribution as provided by
>>> Oracle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I honestly don't see where you
>>> see this.
>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>>> see any indication of it in
>>>>>> bval-tck/target/dependency/lib
>>>>>>>> or in the tck POM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at the
>>> 1.0.4 level yet,
>>>>>> so is
>>>>>>>> there something in there
>>>>>>>>>> that we need? What
>>> changes were
>>>>>> introduced?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My lack of understanding of the
>>> issues simply
>>>>>> led me
>>>>>>>> to believe that the more recent
>>> release of the
>>>>>> spec we could
>>>>>>>> pass, the better. In
>>> particular I had hoped
>>>>>> that there
>>>>>>>> might be a difference in TCK
>>> versions with regard
>>>>>> to my
>>>>>>>> allegations on the incorrectness of
>>> the RI
>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>> the Path interface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt
>>> Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18
>>> AM, Donald
>>>>>> Woods
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the latest TCK
>>> drop from
>>>>>> Oracle is
>>>>>>>> 1.0.3, so I'd rather not move
>>>>>>>>>>>> up until we have a
>>> newer TCK level
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> matches.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm fine with whatever
>>> the community
>>>>>> decides,
>>>>>>>> of course, but can you explain the
>>> above?
>>>>>> I'm afraid I
>>>>>>>> don't understand...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM,
>>> mbenson@apache.org
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: mbenson
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 29
>>> 01:53:36
>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision:
>>> 1002445
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade to tck
>>> version
>>>>>> 1.0.4.GA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>
>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>
>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>>
>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml Wed Sep 29
>>>>>> 01:53:36
>>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7
>>> @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> <dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> <version>1.0.3.GA</version>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> <version>1.0.4.GA</version>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> </dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> <dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Currently, 1.0.3.GA is the latest version we have from Oracle for the
ASF to use as part of our Java EE 6 projects. Until we get an updated
version, we need to maintain compliance with that level. We could
create a 1.0.x maintenance branch for the 1.0.3 TCK and then upgrade
trunk to >= 1.0.5.
-Donald
On 1/14/11 4:39 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> imo we should always aim to pass the latest available (and known good) TCK.
>
> Please note that there are often some known issues _inside_ some TCK due to over-interpretation of the spec wording, differences between the spec wording and the spec-published javadoc (which has higher prio), etc.
>
> So taking the latest available (and reporting any problems back to the EG) is always a good thing imo.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Fri, 1/14/11, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 9:12 PM
>> Resurrecting this thread:
>> While it may be possible, as David suggests, to
>> manage different TCK
>> versions with Maven profiles, the point will become moot
>> after the
>> release of the 1.0.5 version of the
>> TCK: due to
>> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12
>> a
>> JSR303 implementation will realistically be able to pass a
>> TCK <
>> v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not both. My personal
>> preference is to make
>> Apache Bean Validation conform to the spec and thus the
>> later version
>> of the TCK. Can we take a basic poll as to the
>> general preference of
>> the team?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On 10/4/10, Gerhard <ge...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> i agree with mark.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>
>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>>> Courses in English and German
>>>
>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>
>>>> Oki, sorry for not being specific enough. I'll try
>> to rephrase what I
>>>> mean:
>>>>
>>>> If we pass the open JSR-303 TCK, then we can claim
>> to be 'JSR-303
>>>> compatible' and 'successfully passed the JSR-303
>> TCK'.
>>>>
>>>> But for calling us 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303
>> certified' then we would of
>>>> course need to go the official oracle route.
>>>>
>>>> makes sense?
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
>>>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 11:04 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Mark Struberg
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> isn't the JSR-303 ASL-2 licensed [1]?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I don't think we need to wait for any
>> special
>>>>> Oracle agreement!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you like, then I could ping Emmanuel,
>> but usually
>>>>> the latest TCK is available in the jboss
>> maven repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it makes sense to run both for
>> now. Since its
>>>>> a jcp managed spec, to claim compliance, I
>> think we have
>>>>> to run the tck from the official jcp
>> channels, which,
>>>>> unless we hear something different from
>> Oracle, is Oracle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we put the choice of tck in a couple
>> profiles?
>>>>>
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>> http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
>>>>> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 10:14
>> PM
>>>>>>> Hopefully Kevan will chime in too,
>>>>>>> but it's my understanding that we
>>>>>>> have to pass the BVAL TCK as
>> provided by Oracle
>>>>> under the
>>>>>>> Oracle/ASF NDA
>>>>>>> in order to claim we're
>> certified....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During daily testing, I use the TCK
>> files
>>>>> downloaded from
>>>>>>> the JBoss
>>>>>>> repo. Before we release the
>> Apache BVAL
>>>>> artifacts, I
>>>>>>> always run the
>>>>>>> release artifacts against the TCK as
>> provided by
>>>>> Oracle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 2:14 PM, Matt Benson
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:26 PM,
>> Donald Woods
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The current BVAL TCK from
>> Oracle that we
>>>>> have to
>>>>>>> certify with is
>>>>>>>>>
>> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which uses
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 1.0.3.GA level of the API.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently I am not fully
>> cognizant of the
>>>>> TCK-related
>>>>>>> aspects of the JCP process.
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK
>>>>>>> says:
>>>>>>>> TBD - Need to ask
>> if we must use
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Sun/Oracle provided TCK for final
>> certification
>>>>> testing....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have there been further
>> developments in this
>>>>>>> regard? It was my impression
>> that a spec
>>>>>>> implementation must simply pass the
>> TCK supplied
>>>>> by the spec
>>>>>>> lead. I had no idea there was
>> both an Oracle
>>>>> TCK and a
>>>>>>> JBoss TCK. Where I can learn
>> more about
>>>>> certification
>>>>>>> as it applies to this JSR and our
>> efforts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you look at the TCK that
>> gets
>>>>> downloaded during
>>>>>>> the TCK build, those
>>>>>>>>> files also download the
>> 1.0.3.GA level of
>>>>> the API
>>>>>>> and matches the
>>>>>>>>> distribution as provided by
>> Oracle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I honestly don't see where you
>> see this.
>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>> see any indication of it in
>>>>> bval-tck/target/dependency/lib
>>>>>>> or in the tck POM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at the
>> 1.0.4 level yet,
>>>>> so is
>>>>>>> there something in there
>>>>>>>>> that we need? What
>> changes were
>>>>> introduced?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My lack of understanding of the
>> issues simply
>>>>> led me
>>>>>>> to believe that the more recent
>> release of the
>>>>> spec we could
>>>>>>> pass, the better. In
>> particular I had hoped
>>>>> that there
>>>>>>> might be a difference in TCK
>> versions with regard
>>>>> to my
>>>>>>> allegations on the incorrectness of
>> the RI
>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>> the Path interface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt
>> Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18
>> AM, Donald
>>>>> Woods
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the latest TCK
>> drop from
>>>>> Oracle is
>>>>>>> 1.0.3, so I'd rather not move
>>>>>>>>>>> up until we have a
>> newer TCK level
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> matches.....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm fine with whatever
>> the community
>>>>> decides,
>>>>>>> of course, but can you explain the
>> above?
>>>>> I'm afraid I
>>>>>>> don't understand...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM,
>> mbenson@apache.org
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: mbenson
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 29
>> 01:53:36
>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision:
>> 1002445
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade to tck
>> version
>>>>> 1.0.4.GA
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>
>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> URL:
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>
>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml Wed Sep 29
>>>>> 01:53:36
>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7
>> @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> <dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> <version>1.0.3.GA</version>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> <version>1.0.4.GA</version>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> </dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> <dependency>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
imo we should always aim to pass the latest available (and known good) TCK.
Please note that there are often some known issues _inside_ some TCK due to over-interpretation of the spec wording, differences between the spec wording and the spec-published javadoc (which has higher prio), etc.
So taking the latest available (and reporting any problems back to the EG) is always a good thing imo.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 1/14/11, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 - /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 9:12 PM
> Resurrecting this thread:
> While it may be possible, as David suggests, to
> manage different TCK
> versions with Maven profiles, the point will become moot
> after the
> release of the 1.0.5 version of the
> TCK: due to
> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVTCK-12
> a
> JSR303 implementation will realistically be able to pass a
> TCK <
> v1.0.5 or >= 1.0.5, but not both. My personal
> preference is to make
> Apache Bean Validation conform to the spec and thus the
> later version
> of the TCK. Can we take a basic poll as to the
> general preference of
> the team?
>
> Matt
>
> On 10/4/10, Gerhard <ge...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > i agree with mark.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/10/2 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >
> >> Oki, sorry for not being specific enough. I'll try
> to rephrase what I
> >> mean:
> >>
> >> If we pass the open JSR-303 TCK, then we can claim
> to be 'JSR-303
> >> compatible' and 'successfully passed the JSR-303
> TCK'.
> >>
> >> But for calling us 'Sun/Oracle TCK JSR-303
> certified' then we would of
> >> course need to go the official oracle route.
> >>
> >> makes sense?
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> >> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
> >> /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >> > To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 11:04 PM
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Mark Struberg
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > isn't the JSR-303 ASL-2 licensed [1]?
> >> > >
> >> > > So I don't think we need to wait for any
> special
> >> > Oracle agreement!
> >> > >
> >> > > If you like, then I could ping Emmanuel,
> but usually
> >> > the latest TCK is available in the jboss
> maven repo.
> >> >
> >> > I think it makes sense to run both for
> now. Since its
> >> > a jcp managed spec, to claim compliance, I
> think we have
> >> > to run the tck from the official jcp
> channels, which,
> >> > unless we hear something different from
> Oracle, is Oracle.
> >> >
> >> > Can we put the choice of tck in a couple
> profiles?
> >> >
> >> > david jencks
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > LieGrue,
> >> > > strub
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]
> >> http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/beanvalidation/tck/reference/html_single/
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> From: Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
> >> > >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1002445 -
> >> > /incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >> > >> To: bval-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 10:14
> PM
> >> > >> Hopefully Kevan will chime in too,
> >> > >> but it's my understanding that we
> >> > >> have to pass the BVAL TCK as
> provided by Oracle
> >> > under the
> >> > >> Oracle/ASF NDA
> >> > >> in order to claim we're
> certified....
> >> > >>
> >> > >> During daily testing, I use the TCK
> files
> >> > downloaded from
> >> > >> the JBoss
> >> > >> repo. Before we release the
> Apache BVAL
> >> > artifacts, I
> >> > >> always run the
> >> > >> release artifacts against the TCK as
> provided by
> >> > Oracle.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -Donald
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 10/1/10 2:14 PM, Matt Benson
> wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:26 PM,
> Donald Woods
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> The current BVAL TCK from
> Oracle that we
> >> > have to
> >> > >> certify with is
> >> > >>>>
> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which uses
> >> > the
> >> > >> 1.0.3.GA level of the API.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Apparently I am not fully
> cognizant of the
> >> > TCK-related
> >> > >> aspects of the JCP process.
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK
> >> > >> says:
> >> > >>> TBD - Need to ask
> if we must use
> >> > the
> >> > >> Sun/Oracle provided TCK for final
> certification
> >> > testing....
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Have there been further
> developments in this
> >> > >> regard? It was my impression
> that a spec
> >> > >> implementation must simply pass the
> TCK supplied
> >> > by the spec
> >> > >> lead. I had no idea there was
> both an Oracle
> >> > TCK and a
> >> > >> JBoss TCK. Where I can learn
> more about
> >> > certification
> >> > >> as it applies to this JSR and our
> efforts?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> If you look at the TCK that
> gets
> >> > downloaded during
> >> > >> the TCK build, those
> >> > >>>> files also download the
> 1.0.3.GA level of
> >> > the API
> >> > >> and matches the
> >> > >>>> distribution as provided by
> Oracle.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I honestly don't see where you
> see this.
> >> > I don't
> >> > >> see any indication of it in
> >> > bval-tck/target/dependency/lib
> >> > >> or in the tck POM.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> I haven't looked at the
> 1.0.4 level yet,
> >> > so is
> >> > >> there something in there
> >> > >>>> that we need? What
> changes were
> >> > introduced?
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> My lack of understanding of the
> issues simply
> >> > led me
> >> > >> to believe that the more recent
> release of the
> >> > spec we could
> >> > >> pass, the better. In
> particular I had hoped
> >> > that there
> >> > >> might be a difference in TCK
> versions with regard
> >> > to my
> >> > >> allegations on the incorrectness of
> the RI
> >> > implementation of
> >> > >> the Path interface.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> -Matt
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> -Donald
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> On 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt
> Benson wrote:
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18
> AM, Donald
> >> > Woods
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> Matt, the latest TCK
> drop from
> >> > Oracle is
> >> > >> 1.0.3, so I'd rather not move
> >> > >>>>>> up until we have a
> newer TCK level
> >> > that
> >> > >> matches.....
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> I'm fine with whatever
> the community
> >> > decides,
> >> > >> of course, but can you explain the
> above?
> >> > I'm afraid I
> >> > >> don't understand...
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> -Matt
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> -Donald
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM,
> mbenson@apache.org
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>> Author: mbenson
> >> > >>>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 29
> 01:53:36
> >> > 2010
> >> > >>>>>>> New Revision:
> 1002445
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev
> >> > >>>>>>> Log:
> >> > >>>>>>> upgrade to tck
> version
> >> > 1.0.4.GA
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> Modified:
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> Modified:
> >> > >>
> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml
> >> > >>>>>>> URL:
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> ==============================================================================
> >> > >>>>>>> ---
> >> > >>
> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml (original)
> >> > >>>>>>> +++
> >> > >>
> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml Wed Sep 29
> >> > 01:53:36
> >> > >> 2010
> >> > >>>>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7
> @@
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >
> >> > >>
> <dependency>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId>
> >> > >>>>>>> -
> >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> <version>1.0.3.GA</version>
> >> > >>>>>>> +
> >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> <version>1.0.4.GA</version>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > </dependency>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >
> >> > >>
> <dependency>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>