You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> on 2007/07/11 16:43:16 UTC
Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 7/14/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, the only person who can be the gatekeeper to this mailing list
> is the VP of JCP who knows who has signed the NDA. Operational issue..
Operational issues can be addressed. Any ASF member can review:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/Correspondence/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt
- Sam Ruby
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Well, the only person who can be the gatekeeper to this mailing list
is the VP of JCP who knows who has signed the NDA. Operational issue..
-- dims
On 7/14/07, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> So.... make a jcp-tck and start talking on there?
>
> Why can't people who have signed the NDA with Apache not talk to each other?
>
> Hen
>
> On 7/11/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Yep...this is a perfect case-in-point where a central TCK/JCP authority
> > for would be helpful across projects.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > Not to mention cross project cooperation. Axis2 folks don't know
> > > what's happening inside the cxf jcp sandbox and geronimo jcp sandbox.
> > > Right now the only person who knows all 3 is Mr Jarek :) as he is
> > > committer on all 3 project *and* has access to both the J2EE and JAXWS
> > > TCK's :) :)
> > >
> > > -- dims
> > >
> > > On 7/11/07, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well, this is a very particular case in that the test HAS been changed in
> > >> the latest version of the TCK.
> > >>
> > >> However, it shows another issue: CXF did challenge the tests in
> > >> question, but were then "scolded" by Sun for not using the latest TCK.
> > >> However, we didn't know there was a newer TCK. (GERONIMOTCK-36 for
> > >> those with access)
> > >>
> > >> In this case, not only do they not know about the newer TCK, but they
> > >> also didn't know we already tried challenging it. Part of that is
> > >> because all the communications and stuff around the TCK has to be done
> > >> behind closed doors and on private lists and in private JIRA's and such.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wednesday 11 July 2007 18:33, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > >> > All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a TCK
> > >> > test. Where's the have not?
> > >> >
> > >> > On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> J. Daniel Kulp
> > >> Principal Engineer
> > >> IONA
> > >> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> > >> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> > >> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I definitely would love to have such a list regardless of the final
outcome on NDAs. If we decide we are fine with keeping the NDAs, the
list can be private to the NDA signer's list, or if we decide that
NDAs are no longer needed, a public list. Either way, it would be
nice to have a place to share experiences with using the TCKs.
-dain
On Jul 14, 2007, at 7:35 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> So.... make a jcp-tck and start talking on there?
>>
>> Why can't people who have signed the NDA with Apache not talk to each
>> other?
>
> Of course they can. But they can discuss much more than we currently
> attempt to do on the public dev list, where technical discussion of
> the
> ASF software *must* take place.
>
> Before we decide on working AROUND the terms, let's please let Geir
> publish
> a page on this topic under http://www.apache.org/jcp/ - and clarify
> 90% of
> our misunderstandings. This is what Geir is tasked with.
>
> THEN we can determine what lists, etc, are needed, and how we can
> eliminate
> the NDA between committers and the ASF. The TCK license already
> provides
> the restrictions on the use of the TCK, and we need to demonstrate
> that we
> have faith in our committers and members to honor licenses, no
> matter if
> they are the AL, the GPL, or a commercial license.
>
> Bill
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> So.... make a jcp-tck and start talking on there?
>
> Why can't people who have signed the NDA with Apache not talk to each
> other?
Of course they can. But they can discuss much more than we currently
attempt to do on the public dev list, where technical discussion of the
ASF software *must* take place.
Before we decide on working AROUND the terms, let's please let Geir publish
a page on this topic under http://www.apache.org/jcp/ - and clarify 90% of
our misunderstandings. This is what Geir is tasked with.
THEN we can determine what lists, etc, are needed, and how we can eliminate
the NDA between committers and the ASF. The TCK license already provides
the restrictions on the use of the TCK, and we need to demonstrate that we
have faith in our committers and members to honor licenses, no matter if
they are the AL, the GPL, or a commercial license.
Bill
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
So.... make a jcp-tck and start talking on there?
Why can't people who have signed the NDA with Apache not talk to each other?
Hen
On 7/11/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yep...this is a perfect case-in-point where a central TCK/JCP authority
> for would be helpful across projects.
>
> Jeff
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Not to mention cross project cooperation. Axis2 folks don't know
> > what's happening inside the cxf jcp sandbox and geronimo jcp sandbox.
> > Right now the only person who knows all 3 is Mr Jarek :) as he is
> > committer on all 3 project *and* has access to both the J2EE and JAXWS
> > TCK's :) :)
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 7/11/07, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, this is a very particular case in that the test HAS been changed in
> >> the latest version of the TCK.
> >>
> >> However, it shows another issue: CXF did challenge the tests in
> >> question, but were then "scolded" by Sun for not using the latest TCK.
> >> However, we didn't know there was a newer TCK. (GERONIMOTCK-36 for
> >> those with access)
> >>
> >> In this case, not only do they not know about the newer TCK, but they
> >> also didn't know we already tried challenging it. Part of that is
> >> because all the communications and stuff around the TCK has to be done
> >> behind closed doors and on private lists and in private JIRA's and such.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday 11 July 2007 18:33, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >> > All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a TCK
> >> > test. Where's the have not?
> >> >
> >> > On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
> >>
> >> --
> >> J. Daniel Kulp
> >> Principal Engineer
> >> IONA
> >> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> >> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> >> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Yep...this is a perfect case-in-point where a central TCK/JCP authority
for would be helpful across projects.
Jeff
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Not to mention cross project cooperation. Axis2 folks don't know
> what's happening inside the cxf jcp sandbox and geronimo jcp sandbox.
> Right now the only person who knows all 3 is Mr Jarek :) as he is
> committer on all 3 project *and* has access to both the J2EE and JAXWS
> TCK's :) :)
>
> -- dims
>
> On 7/11/07, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Well, this is a very particular case in that the test HAS been changed in
>> the latest version of the TCK.
>>
>> However, it shows another issue: CXF did challenge the tests in
>> question, but were then "scolded" by Sun for not using the latest TCK.
>> However, we didn't know there was a newer TCK. (GERONIMOTCK-36 for
>> those with access)
>>
>> In this case, not only do they not know about the newer TCK, but they
>> also didn't know we already tried challenging it. Part of that is
>> because all the communications and stuff around the TCK has to be done
>> behind closed doors and on private lists and in private JIRA's and such.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 11 July 2007 18:33, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> > All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a TCK
>> > test. Where's the have not?
>> >
>> > On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
>>
>> --
>> J. Daniel Kulp
>> Principal Engineer
>> IONA
>> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
>> daniel.kulp@iona.com
>> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>
>
>
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Not to mention cross project cooperation. Axis2 folks don't know
what's happening inside the cxf jcp sandbox and geronimo jcp sandbox.
Right now the only person who knows all 3 is Mr Jarek :) as he is
committer on all 3 project *and* has access to both the J2EE and JAXWS
TCK's :) :)
-- dims
On 7/11/07, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Well, this is a very particular case in that the test HAS been changed in
> the latest version of the TCK.
>
> However, it shows another issue: CXF did challenge the tests in
> question, but were then "scolded" by Sun for not using the latest TCK.
> However, we didn't know there was a newer TCK. (GERONIMOTCK-36 for
> those with access)
>
> In this case, not only do they not know about the newer TCK, but they
> also didn't know we already tried challenging it. Part of that is
> because all the communications and stuff around the TCK has to be done
> behind closed doors and on private lists and in private JIRA's and such.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Wednesday 11 July 2007 18:33, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a TCK
> > test. Where's the have not?
> >
> > On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
> > >
> > > --
> > > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Well, this is a very particular case in that the test HAS been changed in
the latest version of the TCK.
However, it shows another issue: CXF did challenge the tests in
question, but were then "scolded" by Sun for not using the latest TCK.
However, we didn't know there was a newer TCK. (GERONIMOTCK-36 for
those with access)
In this case, not only do they not know about the newer TCK, but they
also didn't know we already tried challenging it. Part of that is
because all the communications and stuff around the TCK has to be done
behind closed doors and on private lists and in private JIRA's and such.
Dan
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 18:33, Henri Yandell wrote:
> All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a TCK
> test. Where's the have not?
>
> On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I agree. And it sounds like Geir's understanding of the TCK NDA would
solve this issue (assuming that the spec lead agreed with Geir's
interpretation). Is Sun the spec lead here?
Craig
On Jul 11, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I think this is a classic example. The community has the choice to
> change the implementation, challenge the test, or both. Which path
> to pick isn't clean and needs to be discussed and only the NDA
> signers can be involved in the discussion. You can argue that it
> is an easy decision in this case (which may be the case), but in my
> opinion, the larger community should be able to participate.
>
> -dain
>
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 3:47 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> AIUI - this test should be appealed, which means access to the TCK
>> process
>> (although the committer notes that there is a small efficiency to
>> be gained,
>> anyways.)
>>
>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on
>>> a TCK
>>> test. Where's the have not?
>>>
>>> On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Yep!! Thanks Dain.
On 7/11/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I think this is a classic example. The community has the choice to
> change the implementation, challenge the test, or both. Which path
> to pick isn't clean and needs to be discussed and only the NDA
> signers can be involved in the discussion. You can argue that it is
> an easy decision in this case (which may be the case), but in my
> opinion, the larger community should be able to participate.
>
> -dain
>
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 3:47 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > AIUI - this test should be appealed, which means access to the TCK
> > process
> > (although the committer notes that there is a small efficiency to
> > be gained,
> > anyways.)
> >
> > Henri Yandell wrote:
> >> All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a
> >> TCK
> >> test. Where's the have not?
> >>
> >> On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
> >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I think this is a classic example. The community has the choice to
change the implementation, challenge the test, or both. Which path
to pick isn't clean and needs to be discussed and only the NDA
signers can be involved in the discussion. You can argue that it is
an easy decision in this case (which may be the case), but in my
opinion, the larger community should be able to participate.
-dain
On Jul 11, 2007, at 3:47 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> AIUI - this test should be appealed, which means access to the TCK
> process
> (although the committer notes that there is a small efficiency to
> be gained,
> anyways.)
>
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a
>> TCK
>> test. Where's the have not?
>>
>> On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
>
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
AIUI - this test should be appealed, which means access to the TCK process
(although the committer notes that there is a small efficiency to be gained,
anyways.)
Henri Yandell wrote:
> All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a TCK
> test. Where's the have not?
>
> On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
Re: Real world example of TCK have's vs have-not's
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
All I'm seeing here is that someone is committing a fix based on a TCK
test. Where's the have not?
On 7/11/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=555276
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
>