You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by "ross.cohen" <ro...@gmail.com> on 2016/04/28 15:19:59 UTC
7.0.0 release vote
Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to different
people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0 release
to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which it
clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to figure
out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without some
kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I know
the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you need to
invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified Compliant
to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
--
View this message in context: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+1 I would prefer a tons of -1 from users than committers (actually
commiters know how to sort it out so we shouldnt care much of them for such
things ;)).
Now factually vote passed, no new input made the overall debate face
changed so still think we can move forward. I perfectly get - more than you
think - the manager constraint but it will still be there whatever we do
for now. Also if selecting a product is only done on the TCK compliance I'm
happy to let people use some other $ervers (or if the reason is the logo is
using this #abcdef color), quality is not always there but they are often
expensive enough to convince a manager and sadly lock a developer team to
old and buggy versions but whatever constraints are coming from non dev
people I don't want TomEE to be a hostage of such a discussion. This
belongs to vendors and commercial companies not to open source IMHO.
Side note: EE 7 spec have been listed there
http://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html . Of course it doesn't mean any TCK
compliance but it shows the area we worked on - at least the ones I know
about. If I missed any feel free to complete it. If you think the
formatting can be better feel free to play with the dom too, wanted to
avoid another table which basically duplicates a lot of noise but that's
only my voice and I'm for making it clearer if possible.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
<https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
2016-05-03 17:58 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> We encourage everyone to vote, as a user, as a contributor, as a
> contributor or as anyone willing to help the project.
> User perspective is also important for the project.
>
> Jean-Louis
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:49 PM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Le 29 avr. 2016 00:49, "ross.cohen" <ross.cohen.rc@> a écrit :
> >
> >
> > > Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
> different
> > > people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
> > release
> > > to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which
> it
> > > clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
> > figure
> > > out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > >
> >
> > Clearly stated we were speaking of master in the thread when Jon asked
> so I
> > kind of disagree there.
> >
> > > Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without
> > some
> > > kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I
> > know
> > > the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you
> need
> > to
> > > invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
> > Compliant
> > > to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > >
> >
> > --This doesnt mean anything to me like that. Being ASF implies ASF
> quality
> > --and we cant claim anything Oracle related so Im lost with what you
> target
> > --there.
> >
> > To the vast majority of prospective users any major version change will
> > strongly
> > imply that Tomee conforms to the JEE 7 Web spec. The fact that Tomee is
> > jumping
> > from 2.x to 7.0 seals the deal. I would guess that most people here
> voted
> > for the
> > move to a "7" release under the impression that it would conform to to
> JEE
> > 7
> > web
> > spec -- it's impossible to imagine any other reason for skipping the
> > intervening
> > integers.
> >
> > I'm not a legal person, but it seems like one should be able to say that
> > Tomee
> > conforms to the specifications belonging to the JEE standard released by
> > Oracle.
> > It is a mere statement of fact. It would be nice to have an "Apache
> > Certified"
> > statement and symbol/stamp; for some reason this sort of thing helps a
> lot
> > of
> > managers sleep better at night. Remember that programmers often have to
> > fight
> > for the software they want to use. Frequently, our managers are not very
> > well
> > informed, and are easily flim-flammed by Leviathan's representatives.
> > It's
> > only later
> > that they learn that Leviathan "quality and support" means endless emails
> > and
> > incompetence -- until a month later when someone with a brain finally
> looks
> > at your
> > problem. By that time, of course, you have found a wonky, brittle
> > work-around.
> >
> > Compared to the behemoths, the support here is god-like and wonderful.
> But
> > for
> > some reason the promises of Leviathan feel more real to most managers
> than
> > the
> > actualities of open source. Like deer, most IT managers are wonderfully
> > timid, and
> > easily startled into Leviathan's camp. Once there, like donkeys, they
> are
> > wonderfully
> > adept at planting their feet, if they feel you are trying to lead them
> > towards anything
> > remotely "unsafe". So, if Tomee could have some kind of clear
> > statement/guarantee
> > of conformity to the specs (in whatever form), it would really, really,
> > really, help us
> > guys in the corporate trenches fight against the Leviathan FUD.
> >
> >
> > --We ll clearly not get any EE 7 compatibility on the site. Best we can
> do
> > is
> > --to list API/impl we have of EE 7.
> >
> > This would be a great place to begin! It is something I can bring my
> > manager.
> >
> > --Last point: your vote would have been very welcomed but now vote passed
> > and
> > --I strongly think we can discuss for 10 years without providing anything
> > to
> > --users so more time passes more I think we could use the date as version
> > it
> > --wouldnt be an issue but we have to release Final versions to stop
> holding
> > --tomee from being considered by vendors and tools.
> >
> > Although I have been following Tomee closely for over a year, I haven't
> > contributed
> > anything to the project yet, so I didn't really feel entitled to vote.
> > Thus, I see your
> > invitation as incredibly generous -- too generous, perhaps. I was just
> a
> > little surprised
> > at the outcome.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678328.html
> > Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
Thanks for the feedback.
We encourage everyone to vote, as a user, as a contributor, as a
contributor or as anyone willing to help the project.
User perspective is also important for the project.
Jean-Louis
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:49 PM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 29 avr. 2016 00:49, "ross.cohen" <ross.cohen.rc@> a écrit :
>
>
> > Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to different
> > people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
> release
> > to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which it
> > clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
> figure
> > out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> >
>
> Clearly stated we were speaking of master in the thread when Jon asked so I
> kind of disagree there.
>
> > Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without
> some
> > kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I
> know
> > the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you need
> to
> > invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
> Compliant
> > to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> >
>
> --This doesnt mean anything to me like that. Being ASF implies ASF quality
> --and we cant claim anything Oracle related so Im lost with what you target
> --there.
>
> To the vast majority of prospective users any major version change will
> strongly
> imply that Tomee conforms to the JEE 7 Web spec. The fact that Tomee is
> jumping
> from 2.x to 7.0 seals the deal. I would guess that most people here voted
> for the
> move to a "7" release under the impression that it would conform to to JEE
> 7
> web
> spec -- it's impossible to imagine any other reason for skipping the
> intervening
> integers.
>
> I'm not a legal person, but it seems like one should be able to say that
> Tomee
> conforms to the specifications belonging to the JEE standard released by
> Oracle.
> It is a mere statement of fact. It would be nice to have an "Apache
> Certified"
> statement and symbol/stamp; for some reason this sort of thing helps a lot
> of
> managers sleep better at night. Remember that programmers often have to
> fight
> for the software they want to use. Frequently, our managers are not very
> well
> informed, and are easily flim-flammed by Leviathan's representatives.
> It's
> only later
> that they learn that Leviathan "quality and support" means endless emails
> and
> incompetence -- until a month later when someone with a brain finally looks
> at your
> problem. By that time, of course, you have found a wonky, brittle
> work-around.
>
> Compared to the behemoths, the support here is god-like and wonderful. But
> for
> some reason the promises of Leviathan feel more real to most managers than
> the
> actualities of open source. Like deer, most IT managers are wonderfully
> timid, and
> easily startled into Leviathan's camp. Once there, like donkeys, they are
> wonderfully
> adept at planting their feet, if they feel you are trying to lead them
> towards anything
> remotely "unsafe". So, if Tomee could have some kind of clear
> statement/guarantee
> of conformity to the specs (in whatever form), it would really, really,
> really, help us
> guys in the corporate trenches fight against the Leviathan FUD.
>
>
> --We ll clearly not get any EE 7 compatibility on the site. Best we can do
> is
> --to list API/impl we have of EE 7.
>
> This would be a great place to begin! It is something I can bring my
> manager.
>
> --Last point: your vote would have been very welcomed but now vote passed
> and
> --I strongly think we can discuss for 10 years without providing anything
> to
> --users so more time passes more I think we could use the date as version
> it
> --wouldnt be an issue but we have to release Final versions to stop holding
> --tomee from being considered by vendors and tools.
>
> Although I have been following Tomee closely for over a year, I haven't
> contributed
> anything to the project yet, so I didn't really feel entitled to vote.
> Thus, I see your
> invitation as incredibly generous -- too generous, perhaps. I was just a
> little surprised
> at the outcome.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678328.html
> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "ross.cohen" <ro...@gmail.com>.
Le 29 avr. 2016 00:49, "ross.cohen" <ross.cohen.rc@> a écrit :
> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to different
> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
release
> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which it
> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
figure
> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
>
Clearly stated we were speaking of master in the thread when Jon asked so I
kind of disagree there.
> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without some
> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I
know
> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you need
to
> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
Compliant
> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
>
--This doesnt mean anything to me like that. Being ASF implies ASF quality
--and we cant claim anything Oracle related so Im lost with what you target
--there.
To the vast majority of prospective users any major version change will
strongly
imply that Tomee conforms to the JEE 7 Web spec. The fact that Tomee is
jumping
from 2.x to 7.0 seals the deal. I would guess that most people here voted
for the
move to a "7" release under the impression that it would conform to to JEE 7
web
spec -- it's impossible to imagine any other reason for skipping the
intervening
integers.
I'm not a legal person, but it seems like one should be able to say that
Tomee
conforms to the specifications belonging to the JEE standard released by
Oracle.
It is a mere statement of fact. It would be nice to have an "Apache
Certified"
statement and symbol/stamp; for some reason this sort of thing helps a lot
of
managers sleep better at night. Remember that programmers often have to
fight
for the software they want to use. Frequently, our managers are not very
well
informed, and are easily flim-flammed by Leviathan's representatives. It's
only later
that they learn that Leviathan "quality and support" means endless emails
and
incompetence -- until a month later when someone with a brain finally looks
at your
problem. By that time, of course, you have found a wonky, brittle
work-around.
Compared to the behemoths, the support here is god-like and wonderful. But
for
some reason the promises of Leviathan feel more real to most managers than
the
actualities of open source. Like deer, most IT managers are wonderfully
timid, and
easily startled into Leviathan's camp. Once there, like donkeys, they are
wonderfully
adept at planting their feet, if they feel you are trying to lead them
towards anything
remotely "unsafe". So, if Tomee could have some kind of clear
statement/guarantee
of conformity to the specs (in whatever form), it would really, really,
really, help us
guys in the corporate trenches fight against the Leviathan FUD.
--We ll clearly not get any EE 7 compatibility on the site. Best we can do
is
--to list API/impl we have of EE 7.
This would be a great place to begin! It is something I can bring my
manager.
--Last point: your vote would have been very welcomed but now vote passed
and
--I strongly think we can discuss for 10 years without providing anything to
--users so more time passes more I think we could use the date as version it
--wouldnt be an issue but we have to release Final versions to stop holding
--tomee from being considered by vendors and tools.
Although I have been following Tomee closely for over a year, I haven't
contributed
anything to the project yet, so I didn't really feel entitled to vote.
Thus, I see your
invitation as incredibly generous -- too generous, perhaps. I was just a
little surprised
at the outcome.
Cheers!
--
View this message in context: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678328.html
Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 29 avr. 2016 00:49, "ross.cohen" <ro...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to different
> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
release
> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which it
> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
figure
> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
>
Clearly stated we were speaking of master in the thread when Jon asked so I
kind of disagree there.
> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without some
> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I
know
> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you need
to
> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
Compliant
> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
>
This doesnt mean anything to me like that. Being ASF implies ASF quality
and we cant claim anything Oracle related so Im lost with what you target
there.
We ll clearly not get any EE 7 compatibility on the site. Best we can do is
to list API/impl we have of EE 7.
Last point: your vote would have been very welcomed but now vote passed and
I strongly think we can discuss for 10 years without providing anything to
users so more time passes more I think we could use the date as version it
wouldnt be an issue but we have to release Final versions to stop holding
tomee from being considered by vendors and tools.
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I'm not sure if you're interpretting it as hibernate ORM is AL or not, but
ORM is LGPL. OGM and search are also LGPL. Bean validation is pretty much
the only ALv2 component.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:31 AM Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>
wrote:
> Yep, misleading use of the word 'OR' on this page -
> http://hibernate.org/community/license/ - "Hibernate projects are licensed
> under either the LGPL 2.1 or the ASL 2.0"
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 14:05, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2016-05-02 14:00 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
> >
> > > I still feel we are due another Milestone release until TomEE is a
> little
> > > closer to the mark. There needs to be a really strong statement as to
> > what
> > > is available and what is not. There has already been some negative
> > feedback
> > > from power users that expected more, and were disappointed to find
> > missing
> > > features they expected to find merely based on the 7.x label - Wrongly
> > > thinking that TomEE EE7 support was complete (Because we haven't really
> > > told them).
> > >
> > >
> > Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7. We also
> got
> > very negative feedback and worse than negative feedbacks -> blockers to
> not
> > have a version without "M". You are free to do a milestone if you want
> and
> > even a 8.0.0 when we get certified. In the meantime I see only harmful
> > reasons to block all people waiting on a not milestone (including
> vendors).
> >
> > Said otherwise: I try to push the concrete path vs the philosophical one.
> >
> >
> > > Would there be a problem distributing the latest Hibernate (ASL) with
> > > TomEE? - Even if some features would need unwrapping and documenting.
> > >
> > >
> > it is still mentionned being lgpl 2.1 on their website. validator is asl
> > AFAIK cause of JCP but orm is not. Did you find another source?
> >
> >
> > > Andy.
> > >
> > > On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not supported
> > yet.
> > > > From: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > > To: dev@tomee.apache.org
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: 7.0.0 release vote
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more
> > tests
> > > > > AFAIK.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you
> > want
> > > to
> > > > raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:
> > > > https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/issues
> > > >
> > > > Or if you want to just say them, I can put them into github.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
> > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7
> samples
> > > > > checkup
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what
> is
> > > > > > preventing us from passing those tests?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > David Blevins
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <
> johndament@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <
> > > johndament@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran
> > the
> > > > > tests,
> > > > > > >> you can see the output in this gist:
> > > > > > >>
> > > https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> John
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <
> > > johndament@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to
> the
> > > > TomEE
> > > > > > >>> profile:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> John
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <
> > > > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java
> EE 7
> > > > > samples
> > > > > > >>>> will currently run successfully?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > >>>> David Blevins
> > > > > > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <
> > > ross.cohen.rc@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different
> things
> > to
> > > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > > >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea
> of
> > a
> > > > > 7.0.0
> > > > > > >>>> release
> > > > > > >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0
> > > release,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is
> > > needed
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> figure
> > > > > > >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a
> release
> > > > > without
> > > > > > >>>> some
> > > > > > >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious
> > > > > mistake.
> > > > > > >>>> I know
> > > > > > >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply
> > means
> > > > you
> > > > > > >>>> need to
> > > > > > >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement:
> > > "Apache-Certified
> > > > > > >>>> Compliant
> > > > > > >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>> View this message in context:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > > > > > >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Gumbrecht
> > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
did the same and got an enthousistic moment, didnt last :(
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
<https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
2016-05-02 14:31 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
> Yep, misleading use of the word 'OR' on this page -
> http://hibernate.org/community/license/ - "Hibernate projects are licensed
> under either the LGPL 2.1 or the ASL 2.0"
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 14:05, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2016-05-02 14:00 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
> >
> > > I still feel we are due another Milestone release until TomEE is a
> little
> > > closer to the mark. There needs to be a really strong statement as to
> > what
> > > is available and what is not. There has already been some negative
> > feedback
> > > from power users that expected more, and were disappointed to find
> > missing
> > > features they expected to find merely based on the 7.x label - Wrongly
> > > thinking that TomEE EE7 support was complete (Because we haven't really
> > > told them).
> > >
> > >
> > Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7. We also
> got
> > very negative feedback and worse than negative feedbacks -> blockers to
> not
> > have a version without "M". You are free to do a milestone if you want
> and
> > even a 8.0.0 when we get certified. In the meantime I see only harmful
> > reasons to block all people waiting on a not milestone (including
> vendors).
> >
> > Said otherwise: I try to push the concrete path vs the philosophical one.
> >
> >
> > > Would there be a problem distributing the latest Hibernate (ASL) with
> > > TomEE? - Even if some features would need unwrapping and documenting.
> > >
> > >
> > it is still mentionned being lgpl 2.1 on their website. validator is asl
> > AFAIK cause of JCP but orm is not. Did you find another source?
> >
> >
> > > Andy.
> > >
> > > On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not supported
> > yet.
> > > > From: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > > To: dev@tomee.apache.org
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: 7.0.0 release vote
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more
> > tests
> > > > > AFAIK.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you
> > want
> > > to
> > > > raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:
> > > > https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/issues
> > > >
> > > > Or if you want to just say them, I can put them into github.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
> > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7
> samples
> > > > > checkup
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what
> is
> > > > > > preventing us from passing those tests?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > David Blevins
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <
> johndament@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <
> > > johndament@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran
> > the
> > > > > tests,
> > > > > > >> you can see the output in this gist:
> > > > > > >>
> > > https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> John
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <
> > > johndament@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to
> the
> > > > TomEE
> > > > > > >>> profile:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> John
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <
> > > > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java
> EE 7
> > > > > samples
> > > > > > >>>> will currently run successfully?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > >>>> David Blevins
> > > > > > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <
> > > ross.cohen.rc@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different
> things
> > to
> > > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > > >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea
> of
> > a
> > > > > 7.0.0
> > > > > > >>>> release
> > > > > > >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0
> > > release,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is
> > > needed
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> figure
> > > > > > >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a
> release
> > > > > without
> > > > > > >>>> some
> > > > > > >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious
> > > > > mistake.
> > > > > > >>>> I know
> > > > > > >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply
> > means
> > > > you
> > > > > > >>>> need to
> > > > > > >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement:
> > > "Apache-Certified
> > > > > > >>>> Compliant
> > > > > > >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>> View this message in context:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > > > > > >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Gumbrecht
> > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>.
Yep, misleading use of the word 'OR' on this page -
http://hibernate.org/community/license/ - "Hibernate projects are licensed
under either the LGPL 2.1 or the ASL 2.0"
On 2 May 2016 at 14:05, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-05-02 14:00 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
>
> > I still feel we are due another Milestone release until TomEE is a little
> > closer to the mark. There needs to be a really strong statement as to
> what
> > is available and what is not. There has already been some negative
> feedback
> > from power users that expected more, and were disappointed to find
> missing
> > features they expected to find merely based on the 7.x label - Wrongly
> > thinking that TomEE EE7 support was complete (Because we haven't really
> > told them).
> >
> >
> Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7. We also got
> very negative feedback and worse than negative feedbacks -> blockers to not
> have a version without "M". You are free to do a milestone if you want and
> even a 8.0.0 when we get certified. In the meantime I see only harmful
> reasons to block all people waiting on a not milestone (including vendors).
>
> Said otherwise: I try to push the concrete path vs the philosophical one.
>
>
> > Would there be a problem distributing the latest Hibernate (ASL) with
> > TomEE? - Even if some features would need unwrapping and documenting.
> >
> >
> it is still mentionned being lgpl 2.1 on their website. validator is asl
> AFAIK cause of JCP but orm is not. Did you find another source?
>
>
> > Andy.
> >
> > On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not supported
> yet.
> > > From: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > To: dev@tomee.apache.org
> > > Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 7.0.0 release vote
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more
> tests
> > > > AFAIK.
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you
> want
> > to
> > > raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:
> > > https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/issues
> > >
> > > Or if you want to just say them, I can put them into github.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
> > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples
> > > > checkup
> > > > > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is
> > > > > preventing us from passing those tests?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > David Blevins
> > > > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <
> > johndament@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran
> the
> > > > tests,
> > > > > >> you can see the output in this gist:
> > > > > >>
> > https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> John
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <
> > johndament@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the
> > > TomEE
> > > > > >>> profile:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> John
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <
> > > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7
> > > > samples
> > > > > >>>> will currently run successfully?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > >>>> David Blevins
> > > > > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <
> > ross.cohen.rc@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things
> to
> > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of
> a
> > > > 7.0.0
> > > > > >>>> release
> > > > > >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0
> > release,
> > > > > which
> > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is
> > needed
> > > > to
> > > > > >>>> figure
> > > > > >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release
> > > > without
> > > > > >>>> some
> > > > > >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious
> > > > mistake.
> > > > > >>>> I know
> > > > > >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply
> means
> > > you
> > > > > >>>> need to
> > > > > >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement:
> > "Apache-Certified
> > > > > >>>> Compliant
> > > > > >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>> View this message in context:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > > > > >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andy Gumbrecht
> > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
>
--
Andy Gumbrecht
https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
http://www.tomitribe.com
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@David: we needed a version >= 5 (think I voted for 5) just to not break
auto-tools like maven version comparison etc. Then I guess users desired
ee=tomee but when you pointed out this confusion to me I made it clear in a
thread.
@all: now we had milestones 7.x we need for the same reason a 7.0.0 or a >
7.x so 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are no more options.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
<https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
2016-05-03 7:53 GMT+02:00 Eduard Ketler <ed...@gmail.com>:
> Hi all, from a Customers or User perspective i totally agree with using
> version 2.x and wait with 7.x for the EE compliance. Thats pretty straight
> forward David. That would not confusing me.
>
> Eduard
>
> Matej <gm...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 3. Mai 2016 um 07:08:
>
> > Hi all. Not developer. But I also think jumping to 7.x for no reason will
> > only confuse everyone. If ee7 will not be provided like 98 - 99 %
> > compliant. Then it would really be better to maybe just go 2.x route. I
> > think already now people that choose Tomee, dont really care about being
> > 100% compliant. But still would be nice to not confuse people. Br matej
> > 3. maj 2016 05.43 je oseba "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com>
> > napisala:
> >
> > >
> > > > On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7.
> > >
> > > My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version
> > > number specifically to align to the Java EE version number and further
> > that
> > > it would not be changed even if major change in the server occurred,
> > > stating “7.1” and “7.2” would be clear enough to communicate breaking
> > > upgrades.
> > >
> > > I voted -1 on that one, but the above was my understanding of what was
> > > decided.
> > >
> > > I’d be glad to hear it is not, but I would question why we didn’t just
> > > stick with 2.x if we weren’t intending to communicate “this implements
> > Java
> > > EE 7”.
> > >
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Eduard Ketler <ed...@gmail.com>.
Hi all, from a Customers or User perspective i totally agree with using
version 2.x and wait with 7.x for the EE compliance. Thats pretty straight
forward David. That would not confusing me.
Eduard
Matej <gm...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 3. Mai 2016 um 07:08:
> Hi all. Not developer. But I also think jumping to 7.x for no reason will
> only confuse everyone. If ee7 will not be provided like 98 - 99 %
> compliant. Then it would really be better to maybe just go 2.x route. I
> think already now people that choose Tomee, dont really care about being
> 100% compliant. But still would be nice to not confuse people. Br matej
> 3. maj 2016 05.43 je oseba "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com>
> napisala:
>
> >
> > > On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7.
> >
> > My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version
> > number specifically to align to the Java EE version number and further
> that
> > it would not be changed even if major change in the server occurred,
> > stating “7.1” and “7.2” would be clear enough to communicate breaking
> > upgrades.
> >
> > I voted -1 on that one, but the above was my understanding of what was
> > decided.
> >
> > I’d be glad to hear it is not, but I would question why we didn’t just
> > stick with 2.x if we weren’t intending to communicate “this implements
> Java
> > EE 7”.
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Matej <gm...@gmail.com>.
Hi all. Not developer. But I also think jumping to 7.x for no reason will
only confuse everyone. If ee7 will not be provided like 98 - 99 %
compliant. Then it would really be better to maybe just go 2.x route. I
think already now people that choose Tomee, dont really care about being
100% compliant. But still would be nice to not confuse people. Br matej
3. maj 2016 05.43 je oseba "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com>
napisala:
>
> > On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7.
>
> My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version
> number specifically to align to the Java EE version number and further that
> it would not be changed even if major change in the server occurred,
> stating “7.1” and “7.2” would be clear enough to communicate breaking
> upgrades.
>
> I voted -1 on that one, but the above was my understanding of what was
> decided.
>
> I’d be glad to hear it is not, but I would question why we didn’t just
> stick with 2.x if we weren’t intending to communicate “this implements Java
> EE 7”.
>
>
> -David
>
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Being 95% compliant or 2% compliant depends on what: spec, tck, goal,
usability etc...
Numbers mean nothing, user feedback does and is rather good for now.
Le 5 mai 2016 17:04, "ross.cohen" <ro...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote
> > Le 4 mai 2016 23:28, "ross.cohen" <
>
> > ross.cohen.rc@
>
> > > a écrit :
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote
> >> > 2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen <
> >>
> >> > ross.cohen.rc@
> >>
> >> > >:
> >> >
> >> >> David Blevins-2 wrote
> >> >> >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That is also my recollection of the question.
> >> >>
> >> >> But whether or not it was the case, it is certainly the case that any
> >> >> user
> >> >> downloading Tomee 7.x will do so under the impression that it is JEE
> 7
> >> >> compliant. This is reason enough to either wait, or continue under
> >> the
> >> >> current numbering scheme.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Well both lead to the same: tomee is not adapted. Question is then:
> >> when
> >> > do
> >> > we stop waiting for something likely not coming?
> >>
> >> I don't really care about the TCK. Everyone would like it if Oracle
> >> would
> >> play nice
> >> and released a TCK for us, but it's not going to happen. However,
> >> compliance with
> >> the specs is a different matter. At what point are we compliant with
> the
> >> specs?
> >> Good question. David says the rest api passes only 75% of the published
> >> examples. To me, that is non-compliant. If it were 95%, I'd be
> willing
> > to
> >> call us
> >> compliant. Exactly where is the line? I'm not sure, but it can't be
> > much
> >> below 95%.
> >> If users find that the software frequently contradicts the spec, they
> >> will
> >> become
> >> frustrated and angry.
> >
> > Examples are not spec compliant too or abuse of vendor behavior. Also a
> > serious amount of users just need what is in tomee now. I tend to prefer
> > to
> > move forward with active people than waiting passive ones move - we lost
> 2
> > years with such a behavior.
> >
> > What you mentionned is also true for 100% certified servers so with
> > experience I think ignoring it is fine while we fix fast.
>
> If it is truly the case that Tomee is 95%+ compliant, then releasing 7.0
> seems reasonable. As you point out, no implementation is 100% compliant.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678364.html
> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
> On May 5, 2016, at 7:26 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Examples are not spec compliant too or abuse of vendor behavior. Also a
>> serious amount of users just need what is in tomee now. I tend to prefer
>> to
>> move forward with active people than waiting passive ones move - we lost 2
>> years with such a behavior.
>>
>> What you mentionned is also true for 100% certified servers so with
>> experience I think ignoring it is fine while we fix fast.
>
> If it is truly the case that Tomee is 95%+ compliant, then releasing 7.0
> seems reasonable. As you point out, no implementation is 100% compliant.
To my observation we have stones unturned. Vendor-specific or not the Java EE 7 examples project are 1) what people are using to learn and 2) run (mostly) fine against compliant Glassfish and Wildfly.
You can see the green and red thumbs up on this page for the full list:
- http://javaee.support/ <http://javaee.support/>
We currently fail 10 out of 28 tests for JAX-RS. Failed tests include JAX-RS 2.0 Client, JSON-P support, JAX-RS Security Declarative, Bean Validation integration, and Async Server support.
Ideally, we’d take some time and pic through them one-by-one and figure out exactly why they don’t pass and make sure everyone is aware and ok with those reasons.
The only technical reason I’ve heard is due to JPA. Seems we could run those tests against Plume and see how we do.
-David
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "ross.cohen" <ro...@gmail.com>.
Romain Manni-Bucau wrote
> Le 4 mai 2016 23:28, "ross.cohen" <
> ross.cohen.rc@
> > a écrit :
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote
>> > 2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen <
>>
>> > ross.cohen.rc@
>>
>> > >:
>> >
>> >> David Blevins-2 wrote
>> >> >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> >
>> >>
>> >> That is also my recollection of the question.
>> >>
>> >> But whether or not it was the case, it is certainly the case that any
>> >> user
>> >> downloading Tomee 7.x will do so under the impression that it is JEE 7
>> >> compliant. This is reason enough to either wait, or continue under
>> the
>> >> current numbering scheme.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Well both lead to the same: tomee is not adapted. Question is then:
>> when
>> > do
>> > we stop waiting for something likely not coming?
>>
>> I don't really care about the TCK. Everyone would like it if Oracle
>> would
>> play nice
>> and released a TCK for us, but it's not going to happen. However,
>> compliance with
>> the specs is a different matter. At what point are we compliant with the
>> specs?
>> Good question. David says the rest api passes only 75% of the published
>> examples. To me, that is non-compliant. If it were 95%, I'd be willing
> to
>> call us
>> compliant. Exactly where is the line? I'm not sure, but it can't be
> much
>> below 95%.
>> If users find that the software frequently contradicts the spec, they
>> will
>> become
>> frustrated and angry.
>
> Examples are not spec compliant too or abuse of vendor behavior. Also a
> serious amount of users just need what is in tomee now. I tend to prefer
> to
> move forward with active people than waiting passive ones move - we lost 2
> years with such a behavior.
>
> What you mentionned is also true for 100% certified servers so with
> experience I think ignoring it is fine while we fix fast.
If it is truly the case that Tomee is 95%+ compliant, then releasing 7.0
seems reasonable. As you point out, no implementation is 100% compliant.
Cheers.
--
View this message in context: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678364.html
Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 4 mai 2016 23:28, "ross.cohen" <ro...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote
> > 2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen <
>
> > ross.cohen.rc@
>
> > >:
> >
> >> David Blevins-2 wrote
> >> >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >
> >>
> >> That is also my recollection of the question.
> >>
> >> But whether or not it was the case, it is certainly the case that any
> >> user
> >> downloading Tomee 7.x will do so under the impression that it is JEE 7
> >> compliant. This is reason enough to either wait, or continue under the
> >> current numbering scheme.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Well both lead to the same: tomee is not adapted. Question is then: when
> > do
> > we stop waiting for something likely not coming?
>
> I don't really care about the TCK. Everyone would like it if Oracle would
> play nice
> and released a TCK for us, but it's not going to happen. However,
> compliance with
> the specs is a different matter. At what point are we compliant with the
> specs?
> Good question. David says the rest api passes only 75% of the published
> examples. To me, that is non-compliant. If it were 95%, I'd be willing
to
> call us
> compliant. Exactly where is the line? I'm not sure, but it can't be
much
> below 95%.
> If users find that the software frequently contradicts the spec, they will
> become
> frustrated and angry.
>
Examples are not spec compliant too or abuse of vendor behavior. Also a
serious amount of users just need what is in tomee now. I tend to prefer to
move forward with active people than waiting passive ones move - we lost 2
years with such a behavior.
What you mentionned is also true for 100% certified servers so with
experience I think ignoring it is fine while we fix fast.
Anyway as said vote passed even if some people were not happy. Ill start a
vote next week and let see what happen.
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678361.html
> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "ross.cohen" <ro...@gmail.com>.
Romain Manni-Bucau wrote
> 2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen <
> ross.cohen.rc@
> >:
>
>> David Blevins-2 wrote
>> >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>
>>
>> That is also my recollection of the question.
>>
>> But whether or not it was the case, it is certainly the case that any
>> user
>> downloading Tomee 7.x will do so under the impression that it is JEE 7
>> compliant. This is reason enough to either wait, or continue under the
>> current numbering scheme.
>>
>>
>>
> Well both lead to the same: tomee is not adapted. Question is then: when
> do
> we stop waiting for something likely not coming?
I don't really care about the TCK. Everyone would like it if Oracle would
play nice
and released a TCK for us, but it's not going to happen. However,
compliance with
the specs is a different matter. At what point are we compliant with the
specs?
Good question. David says the rest api passes only 75% of the published
examples. To me, that is non-compliant. If it were 95%, I'd be willing to
call us
compliant. Exactly where is the line? I'm not sure, but it can't be much
below 95%.
If users find that the software frequently contradicts the spec, they will
become
frustrated and angry.
Cheers
--
View this message in context: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678361.html
Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com>:
> David Blevins-2 wrote
> >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>
> > rmannibucau@
>
> > > wrote:
> >>
> >> Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7.
> >
> > My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version
> > number specifically to align to the Java EE version number and further
> > that it would not be changed even if major change in the server occurred,
> > stating “7.1” and “7.2” would be clear enough to communicate breaking
> > upgrades.
> >
> > I voted -1 on that one, but the above was my understanding of what was
> > decided.
> >
> > I’d be glad to hear it is not, but I would question why we didn’t just
> > stick with 2.x if we weren’t intending to communicate “this implements
> > Java EE 7”.
>
> That is also my recollection of the question.
>
> But whether or not it was the case, it is certainly the case that any user
> downloading Tomee 7.x will do so under the impression that it is JEE 7
> compliant. This is reason enough to either wait, or continue under the
> current numbering scheme.
>
>
>
Well both lead to the same: tomee is not adapted. Question is then: when do
we stop waiting for something likely not coming?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678347.html
> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "ross.cohen" <ro...@gmail.com>.
David Blevins-2 wrote
>> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@
> > wrote:
>>
>> Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7.
>
> My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version
> number specifically to align to the Java EE version number and further
> that it would not be changed even if major change in the server occurred,
> stating “7.1” and “7.2” would be clear enough to communicate breaking
> upgrades.
>
> I voted -1 on that one, but the above was my understanding of what was
> decided.
>
> I’d be glad to hear it is not, but I would question why we didn’t just
> stick with 2.x if we weren’t intending to communicate “this implements
> Java EE 7”.
That is also my recollection of the question.
But whether or not it was the case, it is certainly the case that any user
downloading Tomee 7.x will do so under the impression that it is JEE 7
compliant. This is reason enough to either wait, or continue under the
current numbering scheme.
--
View this message in context: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678347.html
Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7.
My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version number specifically to align to the Java EE version number and further that it would not be changed even if major change in the server occurred, stating “7.1” and “7.2” would be clear enough to communicate breaking upgrades.
I voted -1 on that one, but the above was my understanding of what was decided.
I’d be glad to hear it is not, but I would question why we didn’t just stick with 2.x if we weren’t intending to communicate “this implements Java EE 7”.
-David
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2016-05-02 14:00 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
> I still feel we are due another Milestone release until TomEE is a little
> closer to the mark. There needs to be a really strong statement as to what
> is available and what is not. There has already been some negative feedback
> from power users that expected more, and were disappointed to find missing
> features they expected to find merely based on the 7.x label - Wrongly
> thinking that TomEE EE7 support was complete (Because we haven't really
> told them).
>
>
Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7. We also got
very negative feedback and worse than negative feedbacks -> blockers to not
have a version without "M". You are free to do a milestone if you want and
even a 8.0.0 when we get certified. In the meantime I see only harmful
reasons to block all people waiting on a not milestone (including vendors).
Said otherwise: I try to push the concrete path vs the philosophical one.
> Would there be a problem distributing the latest Hibernate (ASL) with
> TomEE? - Even if some features would need unwrapping and documenting.
>
>
it is still mentionned being lgpl 2.1 on their website. validator is asl
AFAIK cause of JCP but orm is not. Did you find another source?
> Andy.
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not supported yet.
> > From: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > To: dev@tomee.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: 7.0.0 release vote
> >
> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more tests
> > > AFAIK.
> >
> >
> > Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you want
> to
> > raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:
> > https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/issues
> >
> > Or if you want to just say them, I can put them into github.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
> > >
> > > > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples
> > > checkup
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is
> > > > preventing us from passing those tests?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Blevins
> > > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >
> > > > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <
> johndament@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the
> > > tests,
> > > > >> you can see the output in this gist:
> > > > >>
> https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> > > > >>
> > > > >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> John
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <
> johndament@apache.org
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the
> > TomEE
> > > > >>> profile:
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> John
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <
> > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7
> > > samples
> > > > >>>> will currently run successfully?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>> David Blevins
> > > > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <
> ross.cohen.rc@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
> > > > >>>> different
> > > > >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a
> > > 7.0.0
> > > > >>>> release
> > > > >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0
> release,
> > > > which
> > > > >>>> it
> > > > >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is
> needed
> > > to
> > > > >>>> figure
> > > > >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release
> > > without
> > > > >>>> some
> > > > >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious
> > > mistake.
> > > > >>>> I know
> > > > >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means
> > you
> > > > >>>> need to
> > > > >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement:
> "Apache-Certified
> > > > >>>> Compliant
> > > > >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> View this message in context:
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > > > >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Gumbrecht
> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>.
I still feel we are due another Milestone release until TomEE is a little
closer to the mark. There needs to be a really strong statement as to what
is available and what is not. There has already been some negative feedback
from power users that expected more, and were disappointed to find missing
features they expected to find merely based on the 7.x label - Wrongly
thinking that TomEE EE7 support was complete (Because we haven't really
told them).
Would there be a problem distributing the latest Hibernate (ASL) with
TomEE? - Even if some features would need unwrapping and documenting.
Andy.
On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not supported yet.
> From: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> To: dev@tomee.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: 7.0.0 release vote
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more tests
> > AFAIK.
>
>
> Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you want to
> raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/issues
>
> Or if you want to just say them, I can put them into github.
>
>
>
> > Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples
> > checkup
> > > :)
> > >
> > > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is
> > > preventing us from passing those tests?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Blevins
> > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> > > >
> > > > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the
> > tests,
> > > >> you can see the output in this gist:
> > > >> https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> > > >>
> > > >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> > > >>
> > > >> John
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the
> TomEE
> > > >>> profile:
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> > > >>>
> > > >>> John
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <
> > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7
> > samples
> > > >>>> will currently run successfully?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> > > >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> David Blevins
> > > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ross.cohen.rc@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
> > > >>>> different
> > > >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a
> > 7.0.0
> > > >>>> release
> > > >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release,
> > > which
> > > >>>> it
> > > >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed
> > to
> > > >>>> figure
> > > >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release
> > without
> > > >>>> some
> > > >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious
> > mistake.
> > > >>>> I know
> > > >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means
> you
> > > >>>> need to
> > > >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
> > > >>>> Compliant
> > > >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> View this message in context:
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > > >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
--
Andy Gumbrecht
https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
http://www.tomitribe.com
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not supported yet.
From: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
To: dev@tomee.apache.org
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: 7.0.0 release vote
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more tests
> AFAIK.
Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you want to
raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:
https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/issues
Or if you want to just say them, I can put them into github.
> Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples
> checkup
> > :)
> >
> > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is
> > preventing us from passing those tests?
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> > >
> > > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the
> tests,
> > >> you can see the output in this gist:
> > >> https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> > >>
> > >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE
> > >>> profile:
> > >>>
> >
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> > >>>
> > >>> John
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <
> david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7
> samples
> > >>>> will currently run successfully?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> > >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> David Blevins
> > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
> > >>>> different
> > >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a
> 7.0.0
> > >>>> release
> > >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release,
> > which
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed
> to
> > >>>> figure
> > >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release
> without
> > >>>> some
> > >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious
> mistake.
> > >>>> I know
> > >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you
> > >>>> need to
> > >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
> > >>>> Compliant
> > >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> View this message in context:
> > >>>>
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> >
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Fixed several in my fork - guess it has been merged but there was too much
issues to fix them all alone. The build output shows what it is generally -
excepted when the tests are not passing at all like angular example was.
Le 2 mai 2016 13:11, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more tests
> > AFAIK.
>
>
> Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you want to
> raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/issues
>
> Or if you want to just say them, I can put them into github.
>
>
>
> > Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples
> > checkup
> > > :)
> > >
> > > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is
> > > preventing us from passing those tests?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Blevins
> > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> > > >
> > > > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the
> > tests,
> > > >> you can see the output in this gist:
> > > >> https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> > > >>
> > > >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> > > >>
> > > >> John
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the
> TomEE
> > > >>> profile:
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> > > >>>
> > > >>> John
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <
> > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7
> > samples
> > > >>>> will currently run successfully?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> > > >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> David Blevins
> > > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ross.cohen.rc@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
> > > >>>> different
> > > >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a
> > 7.0.0
> > > >>>> release
> > > >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release,
> > > which
> > > >>>> it
> > > >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is
> needed
> > to
> > > >>>> figure
> > > >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release
> > without
> > > >>>> some
> > > >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious
> > mistake.
> > > >>>> I know
> > > >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means
> you
> > > >>>> need to
> > > >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
> > > >>>> Compliant
> > > >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> View this message in context:
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > > >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more tests
> AFAIK.
Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you want to
raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:
https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/issues
Or if you want to just say them, I can put them into github.
> Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples
> checkup
> > :)
> >
> > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is
> > preventing us from passing those tests?
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> > >
> > > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the
> tests,
> > >> you can see the output in this gist:
> > >> https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> > >>
> > >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE
> > >>> profile:
> > >>>
> >
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> > >>>
> > >>> John
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <
> david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7
> samples
> > >>>> will currently run successfully?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> > >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> David Blevins
> > >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
> > >>>> different
> > >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a
> 7.0.0
> > >>>> release
> > >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release,
> > which
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed
> to
> > >>>> figure
> > >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release
> without
> > >>>> some
> > >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious
> mistake.
> > >>>> I know
> > >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you
> > >>>> need to
> > >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
> > >>>> Compliant
> > >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> View this message in context:
> > >>>>
> >
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> >
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more tests
AFAIK.
Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples checkup
> :)
>
> It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is
> preventing us from passing those tests?
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for so many posts :-)
> >
> > TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the tests,
> >> you can see the output in this gist:
> >> https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
> >>
> >> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE
> >>> profile:
> >>>
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7 samples
> >>>> will currently run successfully?
> >>>>
> >>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> >>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> David Blevins
> >>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
> >>>> different
> >>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
> >>>> release
> >>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release,
> which
> >>>> it
> >>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
> >>>> figure
> >>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without
> >>>> some
> >>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake.
> >>>> I know
> >>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you
> >>>> need to
> >>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
> >>>> Compliant
> >>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> View this message in context:
> >>>>
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> >>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples checkup :)
It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is preventing us from passing those tests?
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry for so many posts :-)
>
> TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the tests,
>> you can see the output in this gist:
>> https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
>>
>> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE
>>> profile:
>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7 samples
>>>> will currently run successfully?
>>>>
>>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
>>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David Blevins
>>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
>>>> different
>>>>> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
>>>> release
>>>>> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which
>>>> it
>>>>> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
>>>> figure
>>>>> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without
>>>> some
>>>>> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake.
>>>> I know
>>>>> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you
>>>> need to
>>>>> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
>>>> Compliant
>>>>> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
>>>>> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Sorry for so many posts :-)
TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite.
John
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the tests,
> you can see the output in this gist:
> https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
>
> TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
>
> John
>
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE
>> profile:
>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7 samples
>>> will currently run successfully?
>>>
>>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
>>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Blevins
>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>
>>> > On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
>>> different
>>> > people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
>>> release
>>> > to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which
>>> it
>>> > clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
>>> figure
>>> > out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
>>> >
>>> > Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without
>>> some
>>> > kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake.
>>> I know
>>> > the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you
>>> need to
>>> > invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
>>> Compliant
>>> > to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > View this message in context:
>>> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
>>> > Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the tests,
you can see the output in this gist:
https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536
TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests.
John
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE
> profile:
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
>
> John
>
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7 samples
>> will currently run successfully?
>>
>> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
>> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Blevins
>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to
>> different
>> > people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
>> release
>> > to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which
>> it
>> > clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
>> figure
>> > out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
>> >
>> > Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without
>> some
>> > kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I
>> know
>> > the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you
>> need to
>> > invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
>> Compliant
>> > to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
>> > Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE
profile:
https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690
John
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7 samples
> will currently run successfully?
>
> - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <
> https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to different
> > people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0
> release
> > to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which it
> > clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to
> figure
> > out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
> >
> > Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without
> some
> > kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I
> know
> > the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you need
> to
> > invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified
> Compliant
> > to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> > Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: 7.0.0 release vote
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7 samples will currently run successfully?
- https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples <https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples>
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:19 AM, ross.cohen <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to different
> people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0 release
> to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which it
> clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to figure
> out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release.
>
> Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without some
> kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I know
> the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you need to
> invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified Compliant
> to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such).
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284.html
> Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.