You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwebbeans.apache.org by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> on 2010/09/02 17:54:49 UTC
Re: CDI TCK Issues
FYI:
Issue will be resolved by Red Hat at the next version of TCK.
--Gurkan
________________________________
From: Joseph Bergmark <be...@apache.org>
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 5:42:17 PM
Subject: Re: CDI TCK Issues
I agree with you. The spec doesn't seem to provide any requirement
that decorators should be injected directly into a) The injection
point of the Decorated bean or b) each other.
I guess I'm sure sure how you can validate a TCK test with "secondary
evidence" and the intentions of the EG. It seems to me that it needs
to verify something that is clearly spelled out in the spec.
I think the quote Eric pointed out certainly leaves some room for
implementation choices.
Sincerely,
Joe
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Seems that RedHat rejects TCK challaenge that I did open. Rejection comment is
> given at https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-137
>
> Joe, how could we go with this ? WDYT?
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 3:42:12 PM
> Subject: Re: CDI TCK Issues
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> Hello;
>>
>> We had problems with CDI-TCK 137 and CDI-TCK 138. I have put those issues
into
>> table but not responded so far.
>>
>> Please have a look and tell WDYT?
>>
>> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-137
>> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-138
>
> The tests don't seem to relate to any requirement in the spec. IMO the
> spec even alludes to the idea that the delegate injection points may
> not be the next member of the chain:
>
> "The delegate object implements the delegate type and delegates method
> invocations to remaining uninvoked decorators and eventually to the
> bean"
>
>
> --
> Eric Covener
> covener@gmail.com
>
>
>
Re: CDI TCK Issues
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
CDI-137
I think CDI-138 will be the same
--Gurkan
________________________________
From: Joseph Bergmark <be...@apache.org>
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 9:16:20 PM
Subject: Re: CDI TCK Issues
Is that CDITCK-137, or both 137 and 138?
Sincerely,
Joe
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> FYI:
>
> Issue will be resolved by Red Hat at the next version of TCK.
>
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Joseph Bergmark <be...@apache.org>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 5:42:17 PM
> Subject: Re: CDI TCK Issues
>
> I agree with you. The spec doesn't seem to provide any requirement
> that decorators should be injected directly into a) The injection
> point of the Decorated bean or b) each other.
>
> I guess I'm sure sure how you can validate a TCK test with "secondary
> evidence" and the intentions of the EG. It seems to me that it needs
> to verify something that is clearly spelled out in the spec.
>
> I think the quote Eric pointed out certainly leaves some room for
> implementation choices.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joe
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
> > Seems that RedHat rejects TCK challaenge that I did open. Rejection comment
>is
> > given at https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-137
> >
> > Joe, how could we go with this ? WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks;
> >
> > --Gurkan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> > Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 3:42:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: CDI TCK Issues
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Hello;
> >>
> >> We had problems with CDI-TCK 137 and CDI-TCK 138. I have put those issues
> into
> >> table but not responded so far.
> >>
> >> Please have a look and tell WDYT?
> >>
> >> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-137
> >> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-138
> >
> > The tests don't seem to relate to any requirement in the spec. IMO the
> > spec even alludes to the idea that the delegate injection points may
> > not be the next member of the chain:
> >
> > "The delegate object implements the delegate type and delegates method
> > invocations to remaining uninvoked decorators and eventually to the
> > bean"
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eric Covener
> > covener@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: CDI TCK Issues
Posted by Joseph Bergmark <be...@apache.org>.
Is that CDITCK-137, or both 137 and 138?
Sincerely,
Joe
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> FYI:
>
> Issue will be resolved by Red Hat at the next version of TCK.
>
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Joseph Bergmark <be...@apache.org>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 5:42:17 PM
> Subject: Re: CDI TCK Issues
>
> I agree with you. The spec doesn't seem to provide any requirement
> that decorators should be injected directly into a) The injection
> point of the Decorated bean or b) each other.
>
> I guess I'm sure sure how you can validate a TCK test with "secondary
> evidence" and the intentions of the EG. It seems to me that it needs
> to verify something that is clearly spelled out in the spec.
>
> I think the quote Eric pointed out certainly leaves some room for
> implementation choices.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joe
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Seems that RedHat rejects TCK challaenge that I did open. Rejection comment is
> > given at https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-137
> >
> > Joe, how could we go with this ? WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks;
> >
> > --Gurkan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> > Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 3:42:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: CDI TCK Issues
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Hello;
> >>
> >> We had problems with CDI-TCK 137 and CDI-TCK 138. I have put those issues
> into
> >> table but not responded so far.
> >>
> >> Please have a look and tell WDYT?
> >>
> >> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-137
> >> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-138
> >
> > The tests don't seem to relate to any requirement in the spec. IMO the
> > spec even alludes to the idea that the delegate injection points may
> > not be the next member of the chain:
> >
> > "The delegate object implements the delegate type and delegates method
> > invocations to remaining uninvoked decorators and eventually to the
> > bean"
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eric Covener
> > covener@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>