You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwebbeans.apache.org by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> on 2009/09/14 11:32:33 UTC
jsr-330 TCK
Hi!
Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for JSR-330.
My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330 compliant or if we only use the same annotations to have some 'basic' similarity.
So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply with this TCK or only with the 299er suite?
LieGrue,
strub
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
I think this way we have to think how we are going to support JSR-330
in OWB and how not to make both JSR(s) conflict with each other while
implementing OWB.
Is there a way in JCP to make like a co-ordination board to
co-ordinate between one or more JSR, or JSR-299 should make some
changes - for one more time :S - to explain how to comply with JSR-330
?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Got answers from Pete:
>
> * JSR-299 _IS_ JSR-330 compliant
> * the JSR-299 TCK will include the 330 TCK _only_ as _textual_ requirement and not as technical include.
> * the ref guide will say "to be 299 compliant you must pass the 330 TCK and the 299 TCK"
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Mon, 9/14/09, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
>> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
>> >>>Have they mentioned
>> anything yet?
>> Not so far.
>>
>> --Gurkan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:55:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
>>
>> > But if the JSR-299 TCK implies that any
>> compatible
>> > implementation must also pass the JSR-330 TCK
>>
>> right, that's exactly what I'd like to know. It's not about
>> OWB, but more a question to the 299 EG. Have they mentioned
>> anything yet?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 9/14/09, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> > Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
>> > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:49 AM
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > We have been implementing the JSR-299 specification
>> not
>> > JSR-330. So we have to pass the JSR-299 TCK. But if
>> > the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible
>> implementation
>> > must also pass the JSR-330 TCK, then it may necessary
>> ti
>> > implement it.
>> >
>> > --Gurkan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>
>> > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:43:10 PM
>> > Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
>> >
>> > IMHO, yes. As long as this JSR is accepted in JCP we
>> should
>> > comply
>> > with it to respect and the layered dependency on such
>> > standard
>> > dependency injection specs. As long as we are
>> providing a
>> > dependency
>> > injection service so IMHO we should comply with this
>> > specs.
>> >
>> > But the question now, I think, is when we are going to
>> be
>> > fully
>> > compliant with it ? I mean we have to discuss this
>> point.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Hi!
>> > >
>> > > Bob today announced that they will release a TCK
>> for
>> > JSR-330.
>> > >
>> > > My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is
>> 100% 330
>> > compliant or if we only use the same annotations to
>> have
>> > some 'basic' similarity.
>> > >
>> > > So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also
>> comply
>> > with this TCK or only with the 299er suite?
>> > >
>> > > LieGrue,
>> > > strub
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks
>> > - Mohammad Nour
>> > - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
>> > ----
>> > "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance
>> you
>> > must keep moving"
>> > - Albert Einstein
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Got answers from Pete:
* JSR-299 _IS_ JSR-330 compliant
* the JSR-299 TCK will include the 330 TCK _only_ as _textual_ requirement and not as technical include.
* the ref guide will say "to be 299 compliant you must pass the 330 TCK and the 299 TCK"
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
> >>>Have they mentioned
> anything yet?
> Not so far.
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:55:07 PM
> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
>
> > But if the JSR-299 TCK implies that any
> compatible
> > implementation must also pass the JSR-330 TCK
>
> right, that's exactly what I'd like to know. It's not about
> OWB, but more a question to the 299 EG. Have they mentioned
> anything yet?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- On Mon, 9/14/09, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
> > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:49 AM
> > Folks,
> >
> > We have been implementing the JSR-299 specification
> not
> > JSR-330. So we have to pass the JSR-299 TCK. But if
> > the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible
> implementation
> > must also pass the JSR-330 TCK, then it may necessary
> ti
> > implement it.
> >
> > --Gurkan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>
> > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:43:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
> >
> > IMHO, yes. As long as this JSR is accepted in JCP we
> should
> > comply
> > with it to respect and the layered dependency on such
> > standard
> > dependency injection specs. As long as we are
> providing a
> > dependency
> > injection service so IMHO we should comply with this
> > specs.
> >
> > But the question now, I think, is when we are going to
> be
> > fully
> > compliant with it ? I mean we have to discuss this
> point.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Bob today announced that they will release a TCK
> for
> > JSR-330.
> > >
> > > My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is
> 100% 330
> > compliant or if we only use the same annotations to
> have
> > some 'basic' similarity.
> > >
> > > So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also
> comply
> > with this TCK or only with the 299er suite?
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > - Mohammad Nour
> > - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
> > ----
> > "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance
> you
> > must keep moving"
> > - Albert Einstein
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
>>>Have they mentioned anything yet?
Not so far.
--Gurkan
________________________________
From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:55:07 PM
Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
> But if the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible
> implementation must also pass the JSR-330 TCK
right, that's exactly what I'd like to know. It's not about OWB, but more a question to the 299 EG. Have they mentioned anything yet?
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:49 AM
> Folks,
>
> We have been implementing the JSR-299 specification not
> JSR-330. So we have to pass the JSR-299 TCK. But if
> the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible implementation
> must also pass the JSR-330 TCK, then it may necessary ti
> implement it.
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:43:10 PM
> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
>
> IMHO, yes. As long as this JSR is accepted in JCP we should
> comply
> with it to respect and the layered dependency on such
> standard
> dependency injection specs. As long as we are providing a
> dependency
> injection service so IMHO we should comply with this
> specs.
>
> But the question now, I think, is when we are going to be
> fully
> compliant with it ? I mean we have to discuss this point.
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for
> JSR-330.
> >
> > My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330
> compliant or if we only use the same annotations to have
> some 'basic' similarity.
> >
> > So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply
> with this TCK or only with the 299er suite?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
> - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
> ----
> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you
> must keep moving"
> - Albert Einstein
>
>
>
>
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
> But if the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible
> implementation must also pass the JSR-330 TCK
right, that's exactly what I'd like to know. It's not about OWB, but more a question to the 299 EG. Have they mentioned anything yet?
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:49 AM
> Folks,
>
> We have been implementing the JSR-299 specification not
> JSR-330. So we have to pass the JSR-299 TCK. But if
> the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible implementation
> must also pass the JSR-330 TCK, then it may necessary ti
> implement it.
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:43:10 PM
> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
>
> IMHO, yes. As long as this JSR is accepted in JCP we should
> comply
> with it to respect and the layered dependency on such
> standard
> dependency injection specs. As long as we are providing a
> dependency
> injection service so IMHO we should comply with this
> specs.
>
> But the question now, I think, is when we are going to be
> fully
> compliant with it ? I mean we have to discuss this point.
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for
> JSR-330.
> >
> > My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330
> compliant or if we only use the same annotations to have
> some 'basic' similarity.
> >
> > So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply
> with this TCK or only with the 299er suite?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
> - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
> ----
> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you
> must keep moving"
> - Albert Einstein
>
>
>
>
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
Folks,
We have been implementing the JSR-299 specification not JSR-330. So we have to pass the JSR-299 TCK. But if the JSR-299 TCK implies that any compatible implementation must also pass the JSR-330 TCK, then it may necessary ti implement it.
--Gurkan
________________________________
From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>
To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:43:10 PM
Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
IMHO, yes. As long as this JSR is accepted in JCP we should comply
with it to respect and the layered dependency on such standard
dependency injection specs. As long as we are providing a dependency
injection service so IMHO we should comply with this specs.
But the question now, I think, is when we are going to be fully
compliant with it ? I mean we have to discuss this point.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for JSR-330.
>
> My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330 compliant or if we only use the same annotations to have some 'basic' similarity.
>
> So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply with this TCK or only with the 299er suite?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
My thoughts were into the direction: is the JSR-299 spec really designed to be 100% based on (and compatible with) JSR-330?
There are a few oddities (e.g. @NormalScope vs pseudoscope) where I'm note sure...
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:43 AM
> IMHO, yes. As long as this JSR is
> accepted in JCP we should comply
> with it to respect and the layered dependency on such
> standard
> dependency injection specs. As long as we are providing a
> dependency
> injection service so IMHO we should comply with this
> specs.
>
> But the question now, I think, is when we are going to be
> fully
> compliant with it ? I mean we have to discuss this point.
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for
> JSR-330.
> >
> > My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330
> compliant or if we only use the same annotations to have
> some 'basic' similarity.
> >
> > So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply
> with this TCK or only with the 299er suite?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
> - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
> ----
> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you
> must keep moving"
> - Albert Einstein
>
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
IMHO, yes. As long as this JSR is accepted in JCP we should comply
with it to respect and the layered dependency on such standard
dependency injection specs. As long as we are providing a dependency
injection service so IMHO we should comply with this specs.
But the question now, I think, is when we are going to be fully
compliant with it ? I mean we have to discuss this point.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for JSR-330.
>
> My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330 compliant or if we only use the same annotations to have some 'basic' similarity.
>
> So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply with this TCK or only with the 299er suite?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
> Well, I am rather curious, how this
> TCK will look like ;)
that's another point. The 330 is _very_ thin (others may say 'vague'). So we'd have to make sure that the TCK doesn't require anything which isn't defined in the spec itself.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> From: Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: jsr-330 TCK
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:53 AM
> Well, I am rather curious, how this
> TCK will look like ;)
>
> But besides that I really would like to know, whether
> jsr299 is gonna become
> jsr330 compliant. The point with annotations is, they have
> not any
> behaviour, so it is just up to the environment to interpret
> them. If the
> same annotation types are used in different environments,
> they should share
> a common sense about there meaning and not just "reuse a
> class which name
> approximately matches the desired intention". If jsr299 can
> not comply with
> 330, I rather would like to see 330's annotations in jsr299
> being dropped
> than being re(mis)used.
>
> On the other side... if jsr299 complies, I have not found
> any argument why
> jsr299 implementations should not also comply with jsr330's
> TCK.
>
> br, Sven
>
>
>
>
> 2009/9/14 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for
> JSR-330.
> >
> > My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330
> compliant or if we
> > only use the same annotations to have some 'basic'
> similarity.
> >
> > So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply
> with this TCK or only
> > with the 299er suite?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: jsr-330 TCK
Posted by Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>.
Well, I am rather curious, how this TCK will look like ;)
But besides that I really would like to know, whether jsr299 is gonna become
jsr330 compliant. The point with annotations is, they have not any
behaviour, so it is just up to the environment to interpret them. If the
same annotation types are used in different environments, they should share
a common sense about there meaning and not just "reuse a class which name
approximately matches the desired intention". If jsr299 can not comply with
330, I rather would like to see 330's annotations in jsr299 being dropped
than being re(mis)used.
On the other side... if jsr299 complies, I have not found any argument why
jsr299 implementations should not also comply with jsr330's TCK.
br, Sven
2009/9/14 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Hi!
>
> Bob today announced that they will release a TCK for JSR-330.
>
> My Question: I'm still not sure if JSR-299 is 100% 330 compliant or if we
> only use the same annotations to have some 'basic' similarity.
>
> So, should OWB (and other 299 containers) also comply with this TCK or only
> with the 299er suite?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>