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 2010/08/29 09:08:25 UTC
CDI TCK Issues
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
Thanks;
--Gurkan
Re: CDI TCK Issues
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
I think comment of RedHat is not reasonable for me.
Please have a look at it and comment on the issue WDYT.
________________________________
From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 1:28:20 PM
Subject: Re: CDI TCK Issues
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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: CDI TCK Issues
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
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>.
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>.
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 Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
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