You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de> on 2022/05/31 07:54:04 UTC

Re: Jakarta Mail TCK - Additional Thoughts? (was: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace)

Hi,

short update on this:

Collaborated with JL and exchanged some ideas via Slack.

We now tested James + Greenmail as mail servers to rule out any hard-
coded TCK assumption regarding James. Both fail with the same exception
/ issue on the same TCK mail: 
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mail-tck/blob/2.0.0/tests/mailboxes/test1/9

The difference between the RI and our impl is basically the literal
header:

a5 APPEND test1 () "8-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {150432}
a5 BAD APPEND failed. Illegal arguments.

vs (RI):

A6 APPEND test1 () "08-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {153113+}
A6 OK [APPENDUID 466034631 1] APPEND completed.
  Copied 1 messages

I pushed a configured Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 setup with updated
instructions into this repository: https://github.com/rzo1/mail-tck 

In addition, I am CC'ing the geronimo list, in case some people there
have additional ideas. Otherwise, we will need to take a dive into the
imap spec / server-side impl to get any clues :)

Gruß
Richard


Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 19:46 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> Hi,
> 
> I spend some more time on the mail tck and got some additional
> insights:
> 
> There is one specific mail from the TCK mailbox (test1, mail no. 9),
> which breaks the current Geronimo mail impl. This happens, if you try
> to bootstrap / setup the test mailbox before running the TCK
> according
> ti their documentation. The same procedere just works, if the
> reference
> impl is used.
> 
> The failing tests in the mail tck report similar issues regarding
> failed IMAP commands. Therefore, I assume, that the underlying issue
> is
> similar, i.e. if we solve that, we likely fix some of the TCK tests
> too.
> 
> I added some instructions to 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 to reproduce the
> issue without actually running the TCK, so we might have the chance
> to
> debug it easily. 
> 
> Basically:
> 
> - Checkout https://github.com/rzo1/geronimo-javamail/tree/tck-issues
> - Follow the instructions in tck.adoc to start up a mail server
> (docker-compose + docker exec)
> - Run "fpopulate" with arguments "-s test1 -d
> imap://user01%40james.local:1234@localhost:1143 -D" from within your
> IDE
> - Observe the debug output on the console
> 
> 
> There is a difference between the message length between the RI and
> the
> Geronimo impl (as reported by the { } literal). This might be the
> cause
> (??), but I have no idea what is going on or why it is happening.
> 
> Maybe someone has an idea what is going on here? Or has a pointer
> where
> to look at? I might be "lost in the tck madness" for today :)
> 
> Gruß
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 17:13 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> > To give a more detailed view / update from the spec tck party
> > regarding
> > activation and mail:
> > 
> > (A) Geronimo Activation 2.0
> > 
> > After a first milestone (M1) and some additional fixes after
> > running
> > the activation TCK [1] and related signatures tests, we are now
> > passing
> > them. 
> > 
> > JL prepared a release artifact (1.0.0), which is currently under
> > vote.
> > 
> > During the tck work, we found some inconsistency / unspecified
> > behaviour of "normalizeMimeTypeParameter" of ActivationDataFlavor.
> > While this method is tested in the TCK on the basis of the
> > reference
> > implementation neither the spec itself nor the javadoc are really
> > clear
> > about the "right" return value. At the moment, we adjusted it to
> > pass
> > the TCK test in question.
> > 
> > There is an ongoing discussion at dev@geronimo if this is a desired
> > behaviour or if a system property should be introduced in order to
> > reduce the possibility of breaking some users.
> > 
> > (B) Geronimo Mail 2.0 / 2.1
> > 
> > The current mail impl has some TCK failures. It seems, that we need
> > to
> > do some additional work to get it compliant with the standalone
> > mail
> > tck [3].
> > 
> > The signature tests are failing for Java 11 but are fine with Java
> > 8
> > [4] due to some usage of Object#finalize() and missing annotations
> > (only available in Java 9+) in the Geronimo implementation. While
> > it
> > is
> > not that important for EE9, we need to keep it in mind for EE10.
> > 
> > We currently pass 166 out of 321 mail tck tests [5]. I guess, we
> > need
> > to give it some more love to get the numbers up and finally get it
> > to
> > pass the mail tck. The good thing is, that we already pass the
> > javamail
> > tests for TomEE [6].
> > 
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [1] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/
> > [2] 
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/h8twm4rmdxt67fx227nyywjp96b6cky1
> > [3] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/mail/2.0/
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834
> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835
> > [6]  
> > https://tck.work/tomee/tests?build=1651841331620&path=com.sun.ts.tests.javamail
> > 
> > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 15:44 +0200 schrieb Jean-Louis
> > Monteiro:
> > > Alright, time for a new update.
> > > 
> > > TomEE 8.x with JDK8 and EE8 is equivalent to TomEE 9.x with
> > > JDK11/JDK17 and
> > > EE9.
> > > The build is still not full green, but it's time to start
> > > grabbing
> > > user
> > > feedback as we discussed.
> > > 
> > > So the work started to take every single piece we fixed or
> > > patched
> > > to
> > > start
> > > doing releases and if possible run TCK + signature Tests.
> > > 
> > > David did activation and mail milestones. Richard used the
> > > milestone
> > > to fix
> > > and we are now under vote for activation 2.0 final and Richard is
> > > making
> > > some awesomeness on the mail spec and impl. We should be able to
> > > get
> > > final
> > > versions soon.
> > > 
> > > We also have an OWB vote starting today for a jakarta compatible
> > > version
> > > (including TCK).
> > > Next step is to release a milestone for jakartaee-api 9.1-M2 and
> > > move
> > > on.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:29 AM Wiesner, Martin <
> > > martin.wiesner@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +1
> > > > 
> > > > Best
> > > > Martin
> > > > —
> > > > https://twitter.com/mawiesne
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Am 11.05.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Cesar Hernandez <
> > > > cesarguate@gmail.com
> > > > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> > > > 
> > > > +1, Thank you!
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > El mié, 11 may 2022 a las 9:06, Daniel Dias Dos Santos (<
> > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com<mailto:
> > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com>>)
> > > > escribió:
> > > > 
> > > > +1
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 12:00 Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I am fine with it: +1
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > Von: Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<mailto:
> > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2022 15:57:54
> > > > An: dev@tomee.apache.org<ma...@tomee.apache.org>
> > > > Betreff: Re: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace
> > > > 
> > > > Alright, with the latest changes pushed yesterday and today, we
> > > > are
> > > > now
> > > > at
> > > > the exact same numbers for TomEE 8.x / Jakarta EE 8 under JDK8
> > > > and
> > > > TomEE
> > > > 9.x / Jakarta 9.1 under JDK17.
> > > > 
> > > > If everyone is ok with it, we can create a new milestone and
> > > > give
> > > > users
> > > > the
> > > > opportunity to provide us with some feedback and to report
> > > > bugs.
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM David Blevins <
> > > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Was checking out the TCK numbers this morning can make to
> > > > suggest
> > > > a
> > > > 9.0.0-M8 while things look good and found this amazing email.
> > > > 
> > > > The 9.0.x branch is looking absolutely amazing!!!
> > > > 
> > > > What do we think about pushing out a 9.0.0-M8 while things are
> > > > in
> > > > their
> > > > peak-stable state?  I'm sure we'll have to rip up a few more
> > > > things
> > > > to
> > > > finish off the remaining Jakarta EE and MP TCK issues.  Would
> > > > be
> > > > great
> > > > to
> > > > have something that isn't M7 to fallback on as a reference
> > > > point
> > > > to
> > > > track
> > > > regressions.
> > > > 
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -David
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On May 10, 2022, at 3:56 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Time for some reporting....
> > > > 
> > > > On our journey to migrate TomEE over from javax to jakarta
> > > > namespace,
> > > > we
> > > > had many issues.
> > > > After updating all our code, we had to do a bunch of dependency
> > > > upgrades
> > > > after upgrading many of them (OpenWebbeans, BVal, Geronimo,
> > > > etc).
> > > > 
> > > > We then faced many issues with non compatible libraries for
> > > > example
> > > > (ActiveMQ, commons-dbcp, CXF, sxc, taglib, etc). So we ended up
> > > > repacking
> > > > them in our own groupId after using the Maven Shade plugin to
> > > > relocate
> > > > the
> > > > packages.
> > > > 
> > > > We worked on BVal TCK and CDI TCK and we are close to passing
> > > > them.
> > > > 
> > > > But we had before to solve all our outdated MicroProfile 1.3
> > > > stack
> > > > to
> > > > the
> > > > most recent and jakarta compatible version. Geronimo
> > > > implementations
> > > > being
> > > > far being, we decided to use some SmallRye implementations
> > > > until
> > > > we
> > > > can
> > > > dedicate some time to update our Apache implementations
> > > > (config,
> > > > metrics,
> > > > health, openapi, opentracing, fault tolerance).
> > > > 
> > > > Our build is now more stable, but still not green. Some issues
> > > > are
> > > > basically easy to fix and most people could do it (examples for
> > > > instance).
> > > > 
> > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-full/
> > > > 
> > > > The integration for openapi, opentracing and fault tolerance is
> > > > not
> > > > done
> > > > and we are far from passing the TCK. On config, metrics and
> > > > health
> > > > we
> > > > are
> > > > close. Same for our JWT implementation.
> > > > 
> > > > I also wanted to have a view on the platform TCK, so I decided
> > > > to
> > > > stop
> > > > TomEE work in order to spend time on the Platform TCK to do all
> > > > dependency
> > > > upgrades and get the TCK to run properly. I'm pleased to
> > > > announce
> > > > that
> > > > after 2 weeks of hard work, we are 99% compatible
> > > > 
> > > > https://tck.work/tomee/build?id=1652104572445
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks everyone for the help.
> > > > Keep going and if you need some guidance or help, let us know.
> > > > 
> > > > For coordination purposes, here is the issue
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3862
> > > > Many subtasks are there and you can create new tasks when
> > > > needed
> > > > and
> > > > ask
> > > > any committer to assign it to you.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Yes - we already yanked it in 9.x
> > > > 
> > > > Gruß
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 05.05.2022 um 10:10 +0100 schrieb Jonathan
> > > > Gallimore:
> > > > Sounds good. I'll drop the transformer from the 8.x branch
> > > > (looks
> > > > like we
> > > > don't use it in 9.x), and I'll create a single example to
> > > > demonstrate
> > > > it in
> > > > a sandbox.
> > > > 
> > > > Jon
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 12:32 PM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > You are right - we can remove it imho from 8.x as we do not
> > > > test
> > > > with
> > > > it and the transformed samples might not even work, e.g.
> > > > dependencies
> > > > are not migrated, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > +1 for providing a (bigger) example.
> > > > 
> > > > Gruß
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 04.05.2022 um 11:17 +0100 schrieb Jonathan
> > > > Gallimore:
> > > > I've picked up a task related to the examples:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3873. I
> > > > specifically
> > > > went
> > > > for
> > > > this, as I added the Eclipse Transformer to the build for a
> > > > number of
> > > > examples in the past, back when we were doing the
> > > > transformation
> > > > process on
> > > > TomEE itself. The drawbacks here is that any tests in the
> > > > examples
> > > > run on
> > > > the javax code, and we just "assume" that the transformed
> > > > artifact
> > > > works. I
> > > > would suggest removing that for the master build, as it just
> > > > takes
> > > > build
> > > > time, and the examples should be transformed from javax to
> > > > jakarta at
> > > > source (if they aren't already). On the TomEE 8 build, we could
> > > > select a
> > > > few examples (no need to do them all) and find a way to run the
> > > > tests
> > > > on
> > > > both javax and jakarta versions of TomEE.
> > > > 
> > > > Additionally, it would likely be useful to add documentation to
> > > > this.
> > > > If we
> > > > also wanted a bigger example application that specifically
> > > > covers
> > > > transformation, I could look at that too.
> > > > 
> > > > What do you think?
> > > > 
> > > > Jon
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I've been working for quite a long time on TomEE 9.x, and it's
> > > > been
> > > > more
> > > > challenging and painful than I was expecting. I thought it
> > > > would be
> > > > good to
> > > > give you some sort of status.
> > > > 
> > > > I created a PR for the work. As a reminder, since Java EE moved
> > > > to
> > > > Eclipse
> > > > to become Jakarta EE, we had a switch from javax.* namespace to
> > > > jakarta.*
> > > > namespace. This is an impacting change, since all applications
> > > > and
> > > > applications servers are built on top of it.
> > > > 
> > > > In TomEE, we decided to do that change in TomEE. We had
> > > > previously
> > > > a
> > > > bytecode change approach like an application could do. It
> > > > worked
> > > > and we
> > > > were able to get certified. But it had a lot of limitations, so
> > > > we
> > > > had to
> > > > do the migration in the code and fix all compatibility issues.
> > > > 
> > > > Here is the PR https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/814
> > > > It has 90+ commits and nearly 5000 files touched (added,
> > > > removed,
> > > > updated).
> > > > I understand it's a lot and it makes it almost impossible to
> > > > review. But I
> > > > did not see much approaches in this scenario to create smaller
> > > > PRs.
> > > > 
> > > > I created a Jenkins build though available at
> > > > 
> > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-quick-9.x/
> > > > 
> > > > It makes it possible to track the progress. There have been
> > > > steps
> > > > forward
> > > > and steps backward.
> > > > 
> > > > All the code does not sit under TomEE, we use a bunch of third
> > > > party
> > > > projects and libraries. I have been able to contribute, publish
> > > > jakarta
> > > > compatible versions and get releases for some of them (Jakarta
> > > > EE
> > > > APIs Uber
> > > > jar, Geronimo Connectors and Transaction Manager, Geronimo
> > > > Config,
> > > > Health,
> > > > Metrics, OpenTracing, OpenAPI. OpenJPA, BVal, and OpenWebBeans
> > > > will
> > > > be
> > > > released soon.
> > > > 
> > > > The big parts is CXF, and ActiveMQ. I had to get them done in
> > > > TomEE
> > > > and
> > > > update all group/artifact ids. It's under deps, alongside with
> > > > SXC,
> > > > DBCP,
> > > > and others.
> > > > 
> > > > In terms of removal, I tried to remove old stuff like SAAJ Axis
> > > > 1
> > > > integration, JAX RPC, Management J2EE and a couple of other old
> > > > things.
> > > > 
> > > > A lot of other libraries got updated to their latest version
> > > > when
> > > > available
> > > > in the new jakarta namespace.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm starting to get all the build stable and many modules are
> > > > passing now,
> > > > including all CXF webservices, OpenEJB Core, and others. I can
> > > > get
> > > > a build
> > > > and run TomEE.
> > > > 
> > > > Goal is to get a green build asap so we can start working on
> > > > TCK.
> > > > The "quick" build is now green. Working on the full build.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll soon be creating a branch for TomEE 8.x maintenance and
> > > > merge
> > > > the PR.
> > > > I'm hoping we can then have small PRs or at least more people
> > > > working in
> > > > parallel.
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Atentamente:
> > > > César Hernández.
> > > > 
> > > >

Re: Jakarta Mail TCK - Additional Thoughts? (was: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace)

Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Hi Romain,

thanks for the pointer - it sounds somehow familiar to what we
observed. Need to check though :)

Gruß
Richard

Am Donnerstag, dem 02.06.2022 um 09:17 +0200 schrieb Romain Manni-
Bucau:
> Hi,
> 
> Did you try handling LITERAL+ capability (1)? I don't think we do as
> of
> today.
> 
> (1)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7888#:~:text=LITERAL%2B%20allows%20the%20alternate%20form%20of%20literals%20(called%20%22non%2D,are%204096%20bytes%20or%20less
> .
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
> 
> 
> Le mar. 31 mai 2022 à 09:54, Zowalla, Richard <
> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > short update on this:
> > 
> > Collaborated with JL and exchanged some ideas via Slack.
> > 
> > We now tested James + Greenmail as mail servers to rule out any
> > hard-
> > coded TCK assumption regarding James. Both fail with the same
> > exception
> > / issue on the same TCK mail:
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mail-tck/blob/2.0.0/tests/mailboxes/test1/9
> > 
> > The difference between the RI and our impl is basically the literal
> > header:
> > 
> > a5 APPEND test1 () "8-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {150432}
> > a5 BAD APPEND failed. Illegal arguments.
> > 
> > vs (RI):
> > 
> > A6 APPEND test1 () "08-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {153113+}
> > A6 OK [APPENDUID 466034631 1] APPEND completed.
> >   Copied 1 messages
> > 
> > I pushed a configured Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 setup with updated
> > instructions into this repository: https://github.com/rzo1/mail-tck
> > 
> > In addition, I am CC'ing the geronimo list, in case some people
> > there
> > have additional ideas. Otherwise, we will need to take a dive into
> > the
> > imap spec / server-side impl to get any clues :)
> > 
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> > 
> > 
> > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 19:46 +0000 schrieb Zowalla,
> > Richard:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I spend some more time on the mail tck and got some additional
> > > insights:
> > > 
> > > There is one specific mail from the TCK mailbox (test1, mail no.
> > > 9),
> > > which breaks the current Geronimo mail impl. This happens, if you
> > > try
> > > to bootstrap / setup the test mailbox before running the TCK
> > > according
> > > ti their documentation. The same procedere just works, if the
> > > reference
> > > impl is used.
> > > 
> > > The failing tests in the mail tck report similar issues regarding
> > > failed IMAP commands. Therefore, I assume, that the underlying
> > > issue
> > > is
> > > similar, i.e. if we solve that, we likely fix some of the TCK
> > > tests
> > > too.
> > > 
> > > I added some instructions to
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 to reproduce
> > > the
> > > issue without actually running the TCK, so we might have the
> > > chance
> > > to
> > > debug it easily.
> > > 
> > > Basically:
> > > 
> > > - Checkout 
> > > https://github.com/rzo1/geronimo-javamail/tree/tck-issues
> > > - Follow the instructions in tck.adoc to start up a mail server
> > > (docker-compose + docker exec)
> > > - Run "fpopulate" with arguments "-s test1 -d
> > > imap://user01%40james.local:1234@localhost:1143 -D" from within
> > > your
> > > IDE
> > > - Observe the debug output on the console
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There is a difference between the message length between the RI
> > > and
> > > the
> > > Geronimo impl (as reported by the { } literal). This might be the
> > > cause
> > > (??), but I have no idea what is going on or why it is happening.
> > > 
> > > Maybe someone has an idea what is going on here? Or has a pointer
> > > where
> > > to look at? I might be "lost in the tck madness" for today :)
> > > 
> > > Gruß
> > > Richard
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 17:13 +0000 schrieb Zowalla,
> > > Richard:
> > > > To give a more detailed view / update from the spec tck party
> > > > regarding
> > > > activation and mail:
> > > > 
> > > > (A) Geronimo Activation 2.0
> > > > 
> > > > After a first milestone (M1) and some additional fixes after
> > > > running
> > > > the activation TCK [1] and related signatures tests, we are now
> > > > passing
> > > > them.
> > > > 
> > > > JL prepared a release artifact (1.0.0), which is currently
> > > > under
> > > > vote.
> > > > 
> > > > During the tck work, we found some inconsistency / unspecified
> > > > behaviour of "normalizeMimeTypeParameter" of
> > > > ActivationDataFlavor.
> > > > While this method is tested in the TCK on the basis of the
> > > > reference
> > > > implementation neither the spec itself nor the javadoc are
> > > > really
> > > > clear
> > > > about the "right" return value. At the moment, we adjusted it
> > > > to
> > > > pass
> > > > the TCK test in question.
> > > > 
> > > > There is an ongoing discussion at dev@geronimo if this is a
> > > > desired
> > > > behaviour or if a system property should be introduced in order
> > > > to
> > > > reduce the possibility of breaking some users.
> > > > 
> > > > (B) Geronimo Mail 2.0 / 2.1
> > > > 
> > > > The current mail impl has some TCK failures. It seems, that we
> > > > need
> > > > to
> > > > do some additional work to get it compliant with the standalone
> > > > mail
> > > > tck [3].
> > > > 
> > > > The signature tests are failing for Java 11 but are fine with
> > > > Java
> > > > 8
> > > > [4] due to some usage of Object#finalize() and missing
> > > > annotations
> > > > (only available in Java 9+) in the Geronimo implementation.
> > > > While
> > > > it
> > > > is
> > > > not that important for EE9, we need to keep it in mind for
> > > > EE10.
> > > > 
> > > > We currently pass 166 out of 321 mail tck tests [5]. I guess,
> > > > we
> > > > need
> > > > to give it some more love to get the numbers up and finally get
> > > > it
> > > > to
> > > > pass the mail tck. The good thing is, that we already pass the
> > > > javamail
> > > > tests for TomEE [6].
> > > > 
> > > > Gruß
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/
> > > > [2]
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/h8twm4rmdxt67fx227nyywjp96b6cky1
> > > > [3] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/mail/2.0/
> > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834
> > > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835
> > > > [6]
> > > > 
> > https://tck.work/tomee/tests?build=1651841331620&path=com.sun.ts.tests.javamail
> > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 15:44 +0200 schrieb Jean-Louis
> > > > Monteiro:
> > > > > Alright, time for a new update.
> > > > > 
> > > > > TomEE 8.x with JDK8 and EE8 is equivalent to TomEE 9.x with
> > > > > JDK11/JDK17 and
> > > > > EE9.
> > > > > The build is still not full green, but it's time to start
> > > > > grabbing
> > > > > user
> > > > > feedback as we discussed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So the work started to take every single piece we fixed or
> > > > > patched
> > > > > to
> > > > > start
> > > > > doing releases and if possible run TCK + signature Tests.
> > > > > 
> > > > > David did activation and mail milestones. Richard used the
> > > > > milestone
> > > > > to fix
> > > > > and we are now under vote for activation 2.0 final and
> > > > > Richard is
> > > > > making
> > > > > some awesomeness on the mail spec and impl. We should be able
> > > > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > final
> > > > > versions soon.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We also have an OWB vote starting today for a jakarta
> > > > > compatible
> > > > > version
> > > > > (including TCK).
> > > > > Next step is to release a milestone for jakartaee-api 9.1-M2
> > > > > and
> > > > > move
> > > > > on.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:29 AM Wiesner, Martin <
> > > > > martin.wiesner@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > —
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/mawiesne
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Am 11.05.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Cesar Hernandez <
> > > > > > cesarguate@gmail.com
> > > > > > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +1, Thank you!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > El mié, 11 may 2022 a las 9:06, Daniel Dias Dos Santos (<
> > > > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com<mailto:
> > > > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com>>)
> > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 12:00 Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am fine with it: +1
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > Von: Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<mailto:
> > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2022 15:57:54
> > > > > > An: dev@tomee.apache.org<ma...@tomee.apache.org>
> > > > > > Betreff: Re: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Alright, with the latest changes pushed yesterday and
> > > > > > today, we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > now
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > the exact same numbers for TomEE 8.x / Jakarta EE 8 under
> > > > > > JDK8
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > TomEE
> > > > > > 9.x / Jakarta 9.1 under JDK17.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If everyone is ok with it, we can create a new milestone
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > give
> > > > > > users
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > opportunity to provide us with some feedback and to report
> > > > > > bugs.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM David Blevins <
> > > > > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Was checking out the TCK numbers this morning can make to
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > 9.0.0-M8 while things look good and found this amazing
> > > > > > email.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The 9.0.x branch is looking absolutely amazing!!!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What do we think about pushing out a 9.0.0-M8 while things
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > peak-stable state?  I'm sure we'll have to rip up a few
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > finish off the remaining Jakarta EE and MP TCK
> > > > > > issues.  Would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > great
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > have something that isn't M7 to fallback on as a reference
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > track
> > > > > > regressions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -David
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On May 10, 2022, at 3:56 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Time for some reporting....
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On our journey to migrate TomEE over from javax to jakarta
> > > > > > namespace,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > had many issues.
> > > > > > After updating all our code, we had to do a bunch of
> > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > upgrades
> > > > > > after upgrading many of them (OpenWebbeans, BVal, Geronimo,
> > > > > > etc).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We then faced many issues with non compatible libraries for
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > (ActiveMQ, commons-dbcp, CXF, sxc, taglib, etc). So we
> > > > > > ended up
> > > > > > repacking
> > > > > > them in our own groupId after using the Maven Shade plugin
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > relocate
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > packages.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We worked on BVal TCK and CDI TCK and we are close to
> > > > > > passing
> > > > > > them.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But we had before to solve all our outdated MicroProfile
> > > > > > 1.3
> > > > > > stack
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > most recent and jakarta compatible version. Geronimo
> > > > > > implementations
> > > > > > being
> > > > > > far being, we decided to use some SmallRye implementations
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > dedicate some time to update our Apache implementations
> > > > > > (config,
> > > > > > metrics,
> > > > > > health, openapi, opentracing, fault tolerance).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Our build is now more stable, but still not green. Some
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > basically easy to fix and most people could do it (examples
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > instance).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-full/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The integration for openapi, opentracing and fault
> > > > > > tolerance is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > and we are far from passing the TCK. On config, metrics and
> > > > > > health
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > close. Same for our JWT implementation.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I also wanted to have a view on the platform TCK, so I
> > > > > > decided
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > stop
> > > > > > TomEE work in order to spend time on the Platform TCK to do
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > upgrades and get the TCK to run properly. I'm pleased to
> > > > > > announce
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > after 2 weeks of hard work, we are 99% compatible
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://tck.work/tomee/build?id=1652104572445
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks everyone for the help.
> > > > > > Keep going and if you need some guidance or help, let us
> > > > > > know.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For coordination purposes, here is the issue
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3862
> > > > > > Many subtasks are there and you can create new tasks when
> > > > > > needed
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > any committer to assign it to you.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes - we already yanked it in 9.x
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Gruß
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 05.05.2022 um 10:10 +0100 schrieb
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > Gallimore:
> > > > > > Sounds good. I'll drop the transformer from the 8.x branch
> > > > > > (looks
> > > > > > like we
> > > > > > don't use it in 9.x), and I'll create a single example to
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > it in
> > > > > > a sandbox.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jon
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 12:32 PM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You are right - we can remove it imho from 8.x as we do not
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > it and the transformed samples might not even work, e.g.
> > > > > > dependencies
> > > > > > are not migrated, etc.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +1 for providing a (bigger) example.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Gruß
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 04.05.2022 um 11:17 +0100 schrieb Jonathan
> > > > > > Gallimore:
> > > > > > I've picked up a task related to the examples:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3873. I
> > > > > > specifically
> > > > > > went
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > this, as I added the Eclipse Transformer to the build for a
> > > > > > number of
> > > > > > examples in the past, back when we were doing the
> > > > > > transformation
> > > > > > process on
> > > > > > TomEE itself. The drawbacks here is that any tests in the
> > > > > > examples
> > > > > > run on
> > > > > > the javax code, and we just "assume" that the transformed
> > > > > > artifact
> > > > > > works. I
> > > > > > would suggest removing that for the master build, as it
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > takes
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > time, and the examples should be transformed from javax to
> > > > > > jakarta at
> > > > > > source (if they aren't already). On the TomEE 8 build, we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > select a
> > > > > > few examples (no need to do them all) and find a way to run
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > both javax and jakarta versions of TomEE.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Additionally, it would likely be useful to add
> > > > > > documentation to
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > If we
> > > > > > also wanted a bigger example application that specifically
> > > > > > covers
> > > > > > transformation, I could look at that too.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jon
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I've been working for quite a long time on TomEE 9.x, and
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > challenging and painful than I was expecting. I thought it
> > > > > > would be
> > > > > > good to
> > > > > > give you some sort of status.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I created a PR for the work. As a reminder, since Java EE
> > > > > > moved
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > Eclipse
> > > > > > to become Jakarta EE, we had a switch from javax.*
> > > > > > namespace to
> > > > > > jakarta.*
> > > > > > namespace. This is an impacting change, since all
> > > > > > applications
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > applications servers are built on top of it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In TomEE, we decided to do that change in TomEE. We had
> > > > > > previously
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > bytecode change approach like an application could do. It
> > > > > > worked
> > > > > > and we
> > > > > > were able to get certified. But it had a lot of
> > > > > > limitations, so
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > had to
> > > > > > do the migration in the code and fix all compatibility
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here is the PR https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/814
> > > > > > It has 90+ commits and nearly 5000 files touched (added,
> > > > > > removed,
> > > > > > updated).
> > > > > > I understand it's a lot and it makes it almost impossible
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > review. But I
> > > > > > did not see much approaches in this scenario to create
> > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I created a Jenkins build though available at
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-quick-9.x/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It makes it possible to track the progress. There have been
> > > > > > steps
> > > > > > forward
> > > > > > and steps backward.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > All the code does not sit under TomEE, we use a bunch of
> > > > > > third
> > > > > > party
> > > > > > projects and libraries. I have been able to contribute,
> > > > > > publish
> > > > > > jakarta
> > > > > > compatible versions and get releases for some of them
> > > > > > (Jakarta
> > > > > > EE
> > > > > > APIs Uber
> > > > > > jar, Geronimo Connectors and Transaction Manager, Geronimo
> > > > > > Config,
> > > > > > Health,
> > > > > > Metrics, OpenTracing, OpenAPI. OpenJPA, BVal, and
> > > > > > OpenWebBeans
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > released soon.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The big parts is CXF, and ActiveMQ. I had to get them done
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > TomEE
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > update all group/artifact ids. It's under deps, alongside
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > SXC,
> > > > > > DBCP,
> > > > > > and others.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In terms of removal, I tried to remove old stuff like SAAJ
> > > > > > Axis
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > integration, JAX RPC, Management J2EE and a couple of other
> > > > > > old
> > > > > > things.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > A lot of other libraries got updated to their latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > available
> > > > > > in the new jakarta namespace.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm starting to get all the build stable and many modules
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > passing now,
> > > > > > including all CXF webservices, OpenEJB Core, and others. I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > a build
> > > > > > and run TomEE.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Goal is to get a green build asap so we can start working
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > TCK.
> > > > > > The "quick" build is now green. Working on the full build.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'll soon be creating a branch for TomEE 8.x maintenance
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > the PR.
> > > > > > I'm hoping we can then have small PRs or at least more
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > working in
> > > > > > parallel.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Atentamente:
> > > > > > César Hernández.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >

Re: Jakarta Mail TCK - Additional Thoughts? (was: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace)

Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Hi Romain,

thanks for the pointer - it sounds somehow familiar to what we
observed. Need to check though :)

Gruß
Richard

Am Donnerstag, dem 02.06.2022 um 09:17 +0200 schrieb Romain Manni-
Bucau:
> Hi,
> 
> Did you try handling LITERAL+ capability (1)? I don't think we do as
> of
> today.
> 
> (1)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7888#:~:text=LITERAL%2B%20allows%20the%20alternate%20form%20of%20literals%20(called%20%22non%2D,are%204096%20bytes%20or%20less
> .
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
> 
> 
> Le mar. 31 mai 2022 à 09:54, Zowalla, Richard <
> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > short update on this:
> > 
> > Collaborated with JL and exchanged some ideas via Slack.
> > 
> > We now tested James + Greenmail as mail servers to rule out any
> > hard-
> > coded TCK assumption regarding James. Both fail with the same
> > exception
> > / issue on the same TCK mail:
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mail-tck/blob/2.0.0/tests/mailboxes/test1/9
> > 
> > The difference between the RI and our impl is basically the literal
> > header:
> > 
> > a5 APPEND test1 () "8-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {150432}
> > a5 BAD APPEND failed. Illegal arguments.
> > 
> > vs (RI):
> > 
> > A6 APPEND test1 () "08-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {153113+}
> > A6 OK [APPENDUID 466034631 1] APPEND completed.
> >   Copied 1 messages
> > 
> > I pushed a configured Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 setup with updated
> > instructions into this repository: https://github.com/rzo1/mail-tck
> > 
> > In addition, I am CC'ing the geronimo list, in case some people
> > there
> > have additional ideas. Otherwise, we will need to take a dive into
> > the
> > imap spec / server-side impl to get any clues :)
> > 
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> > 
> > 
> > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 19:46 +0000 schrieb Zowalla,
> > Richard:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I spend some more time on the mail tck and got some additional
> > > insights:
> > > 
> > > There is one specific mail from the TCK mailbox (test1, mail no.
> > > 9),
> > > which breaks the current Geronimo mail impl. This happens, if you
> > > try
> > > to bootstrap / setup the test mailbox before running the TCK
> > > according
> > > ti their documentation. The same procedere just works, if the
> > > reference
> > > impl is used.
> > > 
> > > The failing tests in the mail tck report similar issues regarding
> > > failed IMAP commands. Therefore, I assume, that the underlying
> > > issue
> > > is
> > > similar, i.e. if we solve that, we likely fix some of the TCK
> > > tests
> > > too.
> > > 
> > > I added some instructions to
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 to reproduce
> > > the
> > > issue without actually running the TCK, so we might have the
> > > chance
> > > to
> > > debug it easily.
> > > 
> > > Basically:
> > > 
> > > - Checkout 
> > > https://github.com/rzo1/geronimo-javamail/tree/tck-issues
> > > - Follow the instructions in tck.adoc to start up a mail server
> > > (docker-compose + docker exec)
> > > - Run "fpopulate" with arguments "-s test1 -d
> > > imap://user01%40james.local:1234@localhost:1143 -D" from within
> > > your
> > > IDE
> > > - Observe the debug output on the console
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There is a difference between the message length between the RI
> > > and
> > > the
> > > Geronimo impl (as reported by the { } literal). This might be the
> > > cause
> > > (??), but I have no idea what is going on or why it is happening.
> > > 
> > > Maybe someone has an idea what is going on here? Or has a pointer
> > > where
> > > to look at? I might be "lost in the tck madness" for today :)
> > > 
> > > Gruß
> > > Richard
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 17:13 +0000 schrieb Zowalla,
> > > Richard:
> > > > To give a more detailed view / update from the spec tck party
> > > > regarding
> > > > activation and mail:
> > > > 
> > > > (A) Geronimo Activation 2.0
> > > > 
> > > > After a first milestone (M1) and some additional fixes after
> > > > running
> > > > the activation TCK [1] and related signatures tests, we are now
> > > > passing
> > > > them.
> > > > 
> > > > JL prepared a release artifact (1.0.0), which is currently
> > > > under
> > > > vote.
> > > > 
> > > > During the tck work, we found some inconsistency / unspecified
> > > > behaviour of "normalizeMimeTypeParameter" of
> > > > ActivationDataFlavor.
> > > > While this method is tested in the TCK on the basis of the
> > > > reference
> > > > implementation neither the spec itself nor the javadoc are
> > > > really
> > > > clear
> > > > about the "right" return value. At the moment, we adjusted it
> > > > to
> > > > pass
> > > > the TCK test in question.
> > > > 
> > > > There is an ongoing discussion at dev@geronimo if this is a
> > > > desired
> > > > behaviour or if a system property should be introduced in order
> > > > to
> > > > reduce the possibility of breaking some users.
> > > > 
> > > > (B) Geronimo Mail 2.0 / 2.1
> > > > 
> > > > The current mail impl has some TCK failures. It seems, that we
> > > > need
> > > > to
> > > > do some additional work to get it compliant with the standalone
> > > > mail
> > > > tck [3].
> > > > 
> > > > The signature tests are failing for Java 11 but are fine with
> > > > Java
> > > > 8
> > > > [4] due to some usage of Object#finalize() and missing
> > > > annotations
> > > > (only available in Java 9+) in the Geronimo implementation.
> > > > While
> > > > it
> > > > is
> > > > not that important for EE9, we need to keep it in mind for
> > > > EE10.
> > > > 
> > > > We currently pass 166 out of 321 mail tck tests [5]. I guess,
> > > > we
> > > > need
> > > > to give it some more love to get the numbers up and finally get
> > > > it
> > > > to
> > > > pass the mail tck. The good thing is, that we already pass the
> > > > javamail
> > > > tests for TomEE [6].
> > > > 
> > > > Gruß
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/
> > > > [2]
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/h8twm4rmdxt67fx227nyywjp96b6cky1
> > > > [3] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/mail/2.0/
> > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834
> > > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835
> > > > [6]
> > > > 
> > https://tck.work/tomee/tests?build=1651841331620&path=com.sun.ts.tests.javamail
> > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 15:44 +0200 schrieb Jean-Louis
> > > > Monteiro:
> > > > > Alright, time for a new update.
> > > > > 
> > > > > TomEE 8.x with JDK8 and EE8 is equivalent to TomEE 9.x with
> > > > > JDK11/JDK17 and
> > > > > EE9.
> > > > > The build is still not full green, but it's time to start
> > > > > grabbing
> > > > > user
> > > > > feedback as we discussed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So the work started to take every single piece we fixed or
> > > > > patched
> > > > > to
> > > > > start
> > > > > doing releases and if possible run TCK + signature Tests.
> > > > > 
> > > > > David did activation and mail milestones. Richard used the
> > > > > milestone
> > > > > to fix
> > > > > and we are now under vote for activation 2.0 final and
> > > > > Richard is
> > > > > making
> > > > > some awesomeness on the mail spec and impl. We should be able
> > > > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > final
> > > > > versions soon.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We also have an OWB vote starting today for a jakarta
> > > > > compatible
> > > > > version
> > > > > (including TCK).
> > > > > Next step is to release a milestone for jakartaee-api 9.1-M2
> > > > > and
> > > > > move
> > > > > on.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:29 AM Wiesner, Martin <
> > > > > martin.wiesner@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > —
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/mawiesne
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Am 11.05.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Cesar Hernandez <
> > > > > > cesarguate@gmail.com
> > > > > > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +1, Thank you!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > El mié, 11 may 2022 a las 9:06, Daniel Dias Dos Santos (<
> > > > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com<mailto:
> > > > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com>>)
> > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 12:00 Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am fine with it: +1
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > Von: Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<mailto:
> > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2022 15:57:54
> > > > > > An: dev@tomee.apache.org<ma...@tomee.apache.org>
> > > > > > Betreff: Re: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Alright, with the latest changes pushed yesterday and
> > > > > > today, we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > now
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > the exact same numbers for TomEE 8.x / Jakarta EE 8 under
> > > > > > JDK8
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > TomEE
> > > > > > 9.x / Jakarta 9.1 under JDK17.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If everyone is ok with it, we can create a new milestone
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > give
> > > > > > users
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > opportunity to provide us with some feedback and to report
> > > > > > bugs.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM David Blevins <
> > > > > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Was checking out the TCK numbers this morning can make to
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > 9.0.0-M8 while things look good and found this amazing
> > > > > > email.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The 9.0.x branch is looking absolutely amazing!!!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What do we think about pushing out a 9.0.0-M8 while things
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > peak-stable state?  I'm sure we'll have to rip up a few
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > finish off the remaining Jakarta EE and MP TCK
> > > > > > issues.  Would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > great
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > have something that isn't M7 to fallback on as a reference
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > track
> > > > > > regressions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -David
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On May 10, 2022, at 3:56 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Time for some reporting....
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On our journey to migrate TomEE over from javax to jakarta
> > > > > > namespace,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > had many issues.
> > > > > > After updating all our code, we had to do a bunch of
> > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > upgrades
> > > > > > after upgrading many of them (OpenWebbeans, BVal, Geronimo,
> > > > > > etc).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We then faced many issues with non compatible libraries for
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > (ActiveMQ, commons-dbcp, CXF, sxc, taglib, etc). So we
> > > > > > ended up
> > > > > > repacking
> > > > > > them in our own groupId after using the Maven Shade plugin
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > relocate
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > packages.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We worked on BVal TCK and CDI TCK and we are close to
> > > > > > passing
> > > > > > them.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But we had before to solve all our outdated MicroProfile
> > > > > > 1.3
> > > > > > stack
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > most recent and jakarta compatible version. Geronimo
> > > > > > implementations
> > > > > > being
> > > > > > far being, we decided to use some SmallRye implementations
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > dedicate some time to update our Apache implementations
> > > > > > (config,
> > > > > > metrics,
> > > > > > health, openapi, opentracing, fault tolerance).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Our build is now more stable, but still not green. Some
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > basically easy to fix and most people could do it (examples
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > instance).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-full/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The integration for openapi, opentracing and fault
> > > > > > tolerance is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > and we are far from passing the TCK. On config, metrics and
> > > > > > health
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > close. Same for our JWT implementation.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I also wanted to have a view on the platform TCK, so I
> > > > > > decided
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > stop
> > > > > > TomEE work in order to spend time on the Platform TCK to do
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > upgrades and get the TCK to run properly. I'm pleased to
> > > > > > announce
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > after 2 weeks of hard work, we are 99% compatible
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://tck.work/tomee/build?id=1652104572445
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks everyone for the help.
> > > > > > Keep going and if you need some guidance or help, let us
> > > > > > know.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For coordination purposes, here is the issue
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3862
> > > > > > Many subtasks are there and you can create new tasks when
> > > > > > needed
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > any committer to assign it to you.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes - we already yanked it in 9.x
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Gruß
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 05.05.2022 um 10:10 +0100 schrieb
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > Gallimore:
> > > > > > Sounds good. I'll drop the transformer from the 8.x branch
> > > > > > (looks
> > > > > > like we
> > > > > > don't use it in 9.x), and I'll create a single example to
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > it in
> > > > > > a sandbox.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jon
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 12:32 PM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You are right - we can remove it imho from 8.x as we do not
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > it and the transformed samples might not even work, e.g.
> > > > > > dependencies
> > > > > > are not migrated, etc.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +1 for providing a (bigger) example.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Gruß
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 04.05.2022 um 11:17 +0100 schrieb Jonathan
> > > > > > Gallimore:
> > > > > > I've picked up a task related to the examples:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3873. I
> > > > > > specifically
> > > > > > went
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > this, as I added the Eclipse Transformer to the build for a
> > > > > > number of
> > > > > > examples in the past, back when we were doing the
> > > > > > transformation
> > > > > > process on
> > > > > > TomEE itself. The drawbacks here is that any tests in the
> > > > > > examples
> > > > > > run on
> > > > > > the javax code, and we just "assume" that the transformed
> > > > > > artifact
> > > > > > works. I
> > > > > > would suggest removing that for the master build, as it
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > takes
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > time, and the examples should be transformed from javax to
> > > > > > jakarta at
> > > > > > source (if they aren't already). On the TomEE 8 build, we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > select a
> > > > > > few examples (no need to do them all) and find a way to run
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > both javax and jakarta versions of TomEE.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Additionally, it would likely be useful to add
> > > > > > documentation to
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > If we
> > > > > > also wanted a bigger example application that specifically
> > > > > > covers
> > > > > > transformation, I could look at that too.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jon
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I've been working for quite a long time on TomEE 9.x, and
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > challenging and painful than I was expecting. I thought it
> > > > > > would be
> > > > > > good to
> > > > > > give you some sort of status.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I created a PR for the work. As a reminder, since Java EE
> > > > > > moved
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > Eclipse
> > > > > > to become Jakarta EE, we had a switch from javax.*
> > > > > > namespace to
> > > > > > jakarta.*
> > > > > > namespace. This is an impacting change, since all
> > > > > > applications
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > applications servers are built on top of it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In TomEE, we decided to do that change in TomEE. We had
> > > > > > previously
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > bytecode change approach like an application could do. It
> > > > > > worked
> > > > > > and we
> > > > > > were able to get certified. But it had a lot of
> > > > > > limitations, so
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > had to
> > > > > > do the migration in the code and fix all compatibility
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here is the PR https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/814
> > > > > > It has 90+ commits and nearly 5000 files touched (added,
> > > > > > removed,
> > > > > > updated).
> > > > > > I understand it's a lot and it makes it almost impossible
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > review. But I
> > > > > > did not see much approaches in this scenario to create
> > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I created a Jenkins build though available at
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-quick-9.x/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It makes it possible to track the progress. There have been
> > > > > > steps
> > > > > > forward
> > > > > > and steps backward.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > All the code does not sit under TomEE, we use a bunch of
> > > > > > third
> > > > > > party
> > > > > > projects and libraries. I have been able to contribute,
> > > > > > publish
> > > > > > jakarta
> > > > > > compatible versions and get releases for some of them
> > > > > > (Jakarta
> > > > > > EE
> > > > > > APIs Uber
> > > > > > jar, Geronimo Connectors and Transaction Manager, Geronimo
> > > > > > Config,
> > > > > > Health,
> > > > > > Metrics, OpenTracing, OpenAPI. OpenJPA, BVal, and
> > > > > > OpenWebBeans
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > released soon.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The big parts is CXF, and ActiveMQ. I had to get them done
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > TomEE
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > update all group/artifact ids. It's under deps, alongside
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > SXC,
> > > > > > DBCP,
> > > > > > and others.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In terms of removal, I tried to remove old stuff like SAAJ
> > > > > > Axis
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > integration, JAX RPC, Management J2EE and a couple of other
> > > > > > old
> > > > > > things.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > A lot of other libraries got updated to their latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > available
> > > > > > in the new jakarta namespace.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm starting to get all the build stable and many modules
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > passing now,
> > > > > > including all CXF webservices, OpenEJB Core, and others. I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > a build
> > > > > > and run TomEE.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Goal is to get a green build asap so we can start working
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > TCK.
> > > > > > The "quick" build is now green. Working on the full build.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'll soon be creating a branch for TomEE 8.x maintenance
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > the PR.
> > > > > > I'm hoping we can then have small PRs or at least more
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > working in
> > > > > > parallel.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Atentamente:
> > > > > > César Hernández.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >

Re: Jakarta Mail TCK - Additional Thoughts? (was: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace)

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,

Did you try handling LITERAL+ capability (1)? I don't think we do as of
today.

(1)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7888#:~:text=LITERAL%2B%20allows%20the%20alternate%20form%20of%20literals%20(called%20%22non%2D,are%204096%20bytes%20or%20less
.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le mar. 31 mai 2022 à 09:54, Zowalla, Richard <
richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> short update on this:
>
> Collaborated with JL and exchanged some ideas via Slack.
>
> We now tested James + Greenmail as mail servers to rule out any hard-
> coded TCK assumption regarding James. Both fail with the same exception
> / issue on the same TCK mail:
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mail-tck/blob/2.0.0/tests/mailboxes/test1/9
>
> The difference between the RI and our impl is basically the literal
> header:
>
> a5 APPEND test1 () "8-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {150432}
> a5 BAD APPEND failed. Illegal arguments.
>
> vs (RI):
>
> A6 APPEND test1 () "08-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {153113+}
> A6 OK [APPENDUID 466034631 1] APPEND completed.
>   Copied 1 messages
>
> I pushed a configured Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 setup with updated
> instructions into this repository: https://github.com/rzo1/mail-tck
>
> In addition, I am CC'ing the geronimo list, in case some people there
> have additional ideas. Otherwise, we will need to take a dive into the
> imap spec / server-side impl to get any clues :)
>
> Gruß
> Richard
>
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 19:46 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I spend some more time on the mail tck and got some additional
> > insights:
> >
> > There is one specific mail from the TCK mailbox (test1, mail no. 9),
> > which breaks the current Geronimo mail impl. This happens, if you try
> > to bootstrap / setup the test mailbox before running the TCK
> > according
> > ti their documentation. The same procedere just works, if the
> > reference
> > impl is used.
> >
> > The failing tests in the mail tck report similar issues regarding
> > failed IMAP commands. Therefore, I assume, that the underlying issue
> > is
> > similar, i.e. if we solve that, we likely fix some of the TCK tests
> > too.
> >
> > I added some instructions to
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 to reproduce the
> > issue without actually running the TCK, so we might have the chance
> > to
> > debug it easily.
> >
> > Basically:
> >
> > - Checkout https://github.com/rzo1/geronimo-javamail/tree/tck-issues
> > - Follow the instructions in tck.adoc to start up a mail server
> > (docker-compose + docker exec)
> > - Run "fpopulate" with arguments "-s test1 -d
> > imap://user01%40james.local:1234@localhost:1143 -D" from within your
> > IDE
> > - Observe the debug output on the console
> >
> >
> > There is a difference between the message length between the RI and
> > the
> > Geronimo impl (as reported by the { } literal). This might be the
> > cause
> > (??), but I have no idea what is going on or why it is happening.
> >
> > Maybe someone has an idea what is going on here? Or has a pointer
> > where
> > to look at? I might be "lost in the tck madness" for today :)
> >
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 17:13 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> > > To give a more detailed view / update from the spec tck party
> > > regarding
> > > activation and mail:
> > >
> > > (A) Geronimo Activation 2.0
> > >
> > > After a first milestone (M1) and some additional fixes after
> > > running
> > > the activation TCK [1] and related signatures tests, we are now
> > > passing
> > > them.
> > >
> > > JL prepared a release artifact (1.0.0), which is currently under
> > > vote.
> > >
> > > During the tck work, we found some inconsistency / unspecified
> > > behaviour of "normalizeMimeTypeParameter" of ActivationDataFlavor.
> > > While this method is tested in the TCK on the basis of the
> > > reference
> > > implementation neither the spec itself nor the javadoc are really
> > > clear
> > > about the "right" return value. At the moment, we adjusted it to
> > > pass
> > > the TCK test in question.
> > >
> > > There is an ongoing discussion at dev@geronimo if this is a desired
> > > behaviour or if a system property should be introduced in order to
> > > reduce the possibility of breaking some users.
> > >
> > > (B) Geronimo Mail 2.0 / 2.1
> > >
> > > The current mail impl has some TCK failures. It seems, that we need
> > > to
> > > do some additional work to get it compliant with the standalone
> > > mail
> > > tck [3].
> > >
> > > The signature tests are failing for Java 11 but are fine with Java
> > > 8
> > > [4] due to some usage of Object#finalize() and missing annotations
> > > (only available in Java 9+) in the Geronimo implementation. While
> > > it
> > > is
> > > not that important for EE9, we need to keep it in mind for EE10.
> > >
> > > We currently pass 166 out of 321 mail tck tests [5]. I guess, we
> > > need
> > > to give it some more love to get the numbers up and finally get it
> > > to
> > > pass the mail tck. The good thing is, that we already pass the
> > > javamail
> > > tests for TomEE [6].
> > >
> > > Gruß
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/
> > > [2]
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/h8twm4rmdxt67fx227nyywjp96b6cky1
> > > [3] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/mail/2.0/
> > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834
> > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835
> > > [6]
> > >
> https://tck.work/tomee/tests?build=1651841331620&path=com.sun.ts.tests.javamail
> > >
> > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 15:44 +0200 schrieb Jean-Louis
> > > Monteiro:
> > > > Alright, time for a new update.
> > > >
> > > > TomEE 8.x with JDK8 and EE8 is equivalent to TomEE 9.x with
> > > > JDK11/JDK17 and
> > > > EE9.
> > > > The build is still not full green, but it's time to start
> > > > grabbing
> > > > user
> > > > feedback as we discussed.
> > > >
> > > > So the work started to take every single piece we fixed or
> > > > patched
> > > > to
> > > > start
> > > > doing releases and if possible run TCK + signature Tests.
> > > >
> > > > David did activation and mail milestones. Richard used the
> > > > milestone
> > > > to fix
> > > > and we are now under vote for activation 2.0 final and Richard is
> > > > making
> > > > some awesomeness on the mail spec and impl. We should be able to
> > > > get
> > > > final
> > > > versions soon.
> > > >
> > > > We also have an OWB vote starting today for a jakarta compatible
> > > > version
> > > > (including TCK).
> > > > Next step is to release a milestone for jakartaee-api 9.1-M2 and
> > > > move
> > > > on.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:29 AM Wiesner, Martin <
> > > > martin.wiesner@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > > Martin
> > > > > —
> > > > > https://twitter.com/mawiesne
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 11.05.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Cesar Hernandez <
> > > > > cesarguate@gmail.com
> > > > > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1, Thank you!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El mié, 11 may 2022 a las 9:06, Daniel Dias Dos Santos (<
> > > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com<mailto:
> > > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com>>)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 12:00 Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am fine with it: +1
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > Von: Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<mailto:
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2022 15:57:54
> > > > > An: dev@tomee.apache.org<ma...@tomee.apache.org>
> > > > > Betreff: Re: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace
> > > > >
> > > > > Alright, with the latest changes pushed yesterday and today, we
> > > > > are
> > > > > now
> > > > > at
> > > > > the exact same numbers for TomEE 8.x / Jakarta EE 8 under JDK8
> > > > > and
> > > > > TomEE
> > > > > 9.x / Jakarta 9.1 under JDK17.
> > > > >
> > > > > If everyone is ok with it, we can create a new milestone and
> > > > > give
> > > > > users
> > > > > the
> > > > > opportunity to provide us with some feedback and to report
> > > > > bugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM David Blevins <
> > > > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Was checking out the TCK numbers this morning can make to
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > a
> > > > > 9.0.0-M8 while things look good and found this amazing email.
> > > > >
> > > > > The 9.0.x branch is looking absolutely amazing!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > What do we think about pushing out a 9.0.0-M8 while things are
> > > > > in
> > > > > their
> > > > > peak-stable state?  I'm sure we'll have to rip up a few more
> > > > > things
> > > > > to
> > > > > finish off the remaining Jakarta EE and MP TCK issues.  Would
> > > > > be
> > > > > great
> > > > > to
> > > > > have something that isn't M7 to fallback on as a reference
> > > > > point
> > > > > to
> > > > > track
> > > > > regressions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 10, 2022, at 3:56 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Time for some reporting....
> > > > >
> > > > > On our journey to migrate TomEE over from javax to jakarta
> > > > > namespace,
> > > > > we
> > > > > had many issues.
> > > > > After updating all our code, we had to do a bunch of dependency
> > > > > upgrades
> > > > > after upgrading many of them (OpenWebbeans, BVal, Geronimo,
> > > > > etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > We then faced many issues with non compatible libraries for
> > > > > example
> > > > > (ActiveMQ, commons-dbcp, CXF, sxc, taglib, etc). So we ended up
> > > > > repacking
> > > > > them in our own groupId after using the Maven Shade plugin to
> > > > > relocate
> > > > > the
> > > > > packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > We worked on BVal TCK and CDI TCK and we are close to passing
> > > > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we had before to solve all our outdated MicroProfile 1.3
> > > > > stack
> > > > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > most recent and jakarta compatible version. Geronimo
> > > > > implementations
> > > > > being
> > > > > far being, we decided to use some SmallRye implementations
> > > > > until
> > > > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > dedicate some time to update our Apache implementations
> > > > > (config,
> > > > > metrics,
> > > > > health, openapi, opentracing, fault tolerance).
> > > > >
> > > > > Our build is now more stable, but still not green. Some issues
> > > > > are
> > > > > basically easy to fix and most people could do it (examples for
> > > > > instance).
> > > > >
> > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-full/
> > > > >
> > > > > The integration for openapi, opentracing and fault tolerance is
> > > > > not
> > > > > done
> > > > > and we are far from passing the TCK. On config, metrics and
> > > > > health
> > > > > we
> > > > > are
> > > > > close. Same for our JWT implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also wanted to have a view on the platform TCK, so I decided
> > > > > to
> > > > > stop
> > > > > TomEE work in order to spend time on the Platform TCK to do all
> > > > > dependency
> > > > > upgrades and get the TCK to run properly. I'm pleased to
> > > > > announce
> > > > > that
> > > > > after 2 weeks of hard work, we are 99% compatible
> > > > >
> > > > > https://tck.work/tomee/build?id=1652104572445
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks everyone for the help.
> > > > > Keep going and if you need some guidance or help, let us know.
> > > > >
> > > > > For coordination purposes, here is the issue
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3862
> > > > > Many subtasks are there and you can create new tasks when
> > > > > needed
> > > > > and
> > > > > ask
> > > > > any committer to assign it to you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes - we already yanked it in 9.x
> > > > >
> > > > > Gruß
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 05.05.2022 um 10:10 +0100 schrieb Jonathan
> > > > > Gallimore:
> > > > > Sounds good. I'll drop the transformer from the 8.x branch
> > > > > (looks
> > > > > like we
> > > > > don't use it in 9.x), and I'll create a single example to
> > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > it in
> > > > > a sandbox.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 12:32 PM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right - we can remove it imho from 8.x as we do not
> > > > > test
> > > > > with
> > > > > it and the transformed samples might not even work, e.g.
> > > > > dependencies
> > > > > are not migrated, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for providing a (bigger) example.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gruß
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 04.05.2022 um 11:17 +0100 schrieb Jonathan
> > > > > Gallimore:
> > > > > I've picked up a task related to the examples:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3873. I
> > > > > specifically
> > > > > went
> > > > > for
> > > > > this, as I added the Eclipse Transformer to the build for a
> > > > > number of
> > > > > examples in the past, back when we were doing the
> > > > > transformation
> > > > > process on
> > > > > TomEE itself. The drawbacks here is that any tests in the
> > > > > examples
> > > > > run on
> > > > > the javax code, and we just "assume" that the transformed
> > > > > artifact
> > > > > works. I
> > > > > would suggest removing that for the master build, as it just
> > > > > takes
> > > > > build
> > > > > time, and the examples should be transformed from javax to
> > > > > jakarta at
> > > > > source (if they aren't already). On the TomEE 8 build, we could
> > > > > select a
> > > > > few examples (no need to do them all) and find a way to run the
> > > > > tests
> > > > > on
> > > > > both javax and jakarta versions of TomEE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, it would likely be useful to add documentation to
> > > > > this.
> > > > > If we
> > > > > also wanted a bigger example application that specifically
> > > > > covers
> > > > > transformation, I could look at that too.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been working for quite a long time on TomEE 9.x, and it's
> > > > > been
> > > > > more
> > > > > challenging and painful than I was expecting. I thought it
> > > > > would be
> > > > > good to
> > > > > give you some sort of status.
> > > > >
> > > > > I created a PR for the work. As a reminder, since Java EE moved
> > > > > to
> > > > > Eclipse
> > > > > to become Jakarta EE, we had a switch from javax.* namespace to
> > > > > jakarta.*
> > > > > namespace. This is an impacting change, since all applications
> > > > > and
> > > > > applications servers are built on top of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > In TomEE, we decided to do that change in TomEE. We had
> > > > > previously
> > > > > a
> > > > > bytecode change approach like an application could do. It
> > > > > worked
> > > > > and we
> > > > > were able to get certified. But it had a lot of limitations, so
> > > > > we
> > > > > had to
> > > > > do the migration in the code and fix all compatibility issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the PR https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/814
> > > > > It has 90+ commits and nearly 5000 files touched (added,
> > > > > removed,
> > > > > updated).
> > > > > I understand it's a lot and it makes it almost impossible to
> > > > > review. But I
> > > > > did not see much approaches in this scenario to create smaller
> > > > > PRs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I created a Jenkins build though available at
> > > > >
> > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-quick-9.x/
> > > > >
> > > > > It makes it possible to track the progress. There have been
> > > > > steps
> > > > > forward
> > > > > and steps backward.
> > > > >
> > > > > All the code does not sit under TomEE, we use a bunch of third
> > > > > party
> > > > > projects and libraries. I have been able to contribute, publish
> > > > > jakarta
> > > > > compatible versions and get releases for some of them (Jakarta
> > > > > EE
> > > > > APIs Uber
> > > > > jar, Geronimo Connectors and Transaction Manager, Geronimo
> > > > > Config,
> > > > > Health,
> > > > > Metrics, OpenTracing, OpenAPI. OpenJPA, BVal, and OpenWebBeans
> > > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > released soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > The big parts is CXF, and ActiveMQ. I had to get them done in
> > > > > TomEE
> > > > > and
> > > > > update all group/artifact ids. It's under deps, alongside with
> > > > > SXC,
> > > > > DBCP,
> > > > > and others.
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of removal, I tried to remove old stuff like SAAJ Axis
> > > > > 1
> > > > > integration, JAX RPC, Management J2EE and a couple of other old
> > > > > things.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of other libraries got updated to their latest version
> > > > > when
> > > > > available
> > > > > in the new jakarta namespace.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm starting to get all the build stable and many modules are
> > > > > passing now,
> > > > > including all CXF webservices, OpenEJB Core, and others. I can
> > > > > get
> > > > > a build
> > > > > and run TomEE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Goal is to get a green build asap so we can start working on
> > > > > TCK.
> > > > > The "quick" build is now green. Working on the full build.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll soon be creating a branch for TomEE 8.x maintenance and
> > > > > merge
> > > > > the PR.
> > > > > I'm hoping we can then have small PRs or at least more people
> > > > > working in
> > > > > parallel.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Atentamente:
> > > > > César Hernández.
> > > > >
> > > > >
>

Re: Jakarta Mail TCK - Additional Thoughts? (was: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace)

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,

Did you try handling LITERAL+ capability (1)? I don't think we do as of
today.

(1)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7888#:~:text=LITERAL%2B%20allows%20the%20alternate%20form%20of%20literals%20(called%20%22non%2D,are%204096%20bytes%20or%20less
.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le mar. 31 mai 2022 à 09:54, Zowalla, Richard <
richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> short update on this:
>
> Collaborated with JL and exchanged some ideas via Slack.
>
> We now tested James + Greenmail as mail servers to rule out any hard-
> coded TCK assumption regarding James. Both fail with the same exception
> / issue on the same TCK mail:
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mail-tck/blob/2.0.0/tests/mailboxes/test1/9
>
> The difference between the RI and our impl is basically the literal
> header:
>
> a5 APPEND test1 () "8-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {150432}
> a5 BAD APPEND failed. Illegal arguments.
>
> vs (RI):
>
> A6 APPEND test1 () "08-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {153113+}
> A6 OK [APPENDUID 466034631 1] APPEND completed.
>   Copied 1 messages
>
> I pushed a configured Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 setup with updated
> instructions into this repository: https://github.com/rzo1/mail-tck
>
> In addition, I am CC'ing the geronimo list, in case some people there
> have additional ideas. Otherwise, we will need to take a dive into the
> imap spec / server-side impl to get any clues :)
>
> Gruß
> Richard
>
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 19:46 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I spend some more time on the mail tck and got some additional
> > insights:
> >
> > There is one specific mail from the TCK mailbox (test1, mail no. 9),
> > which breaks the current Geronimo mail impl. This happens, if you try
> > to bootstrap / setup the test mailbox before running the TCK
> > according
> > ti their documentation. The same procedere just works, if the
> > reference
> > impl is used.
> >
> > The failing tests in the mail tck report similar issues regarding
> > failed IMAP commands. Therefore, I assume, that the underlying issue
> > is
> > similar, i.e. if we solve that, we likely fix some of the TCK tests
> > too.
> >
> > I added some instructions to
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 to reproduce the
> > issue without actually running the TCK, so we might have the chance
> > to
> > debug it easily.
> >
> > Basically:
> >
> > - Checkout https://github.com/rzo1/geronimo-javamail/tree/tck-issues
> > - Follow the instructions in tck.adoc to start up a mail server
> > (docker-compose + docker exec)
> > - Run "fpopulate" with arguments "-s test1 -d
> > imap://user01%40james.local:1234@localhost:1143 -D" from within your
> > IDE
> > - Observe the debug output on the console
> >
> >
> > There is a difference between the message length between the RI and
> > the
> > Geronimo impl (as reported by the { } literal). This might be the
> > cause
> > (??), but I have no idea what is going on or why it is happening.
> >
> > Maybe someone has an idea what is going on here? Or has a pointer
> > where
> > to look at? I might be "lost in the tck madness" for today :)
> >
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 17:13 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> > > To give a more detailed view / update from the spec tck party
> > > regarding
> > > activation and mail:
> > >
> > > (A) Geronimo Activation 2.0
> > >
> > > After a first milestone (M1) and some additional fixes after
> > > running
> > > the activation TCK [1] and related signatures tests, we are now
> > > passing
> > > them.
> > >
> > > JL prepared a release artifact (1.0.0), which is currently under
> > > vote.
> > >
> > > During the tck work, we found some inconsistency / unspecified
> > > behaviour of "normalizeMimeTypeParameter" of ActivationDataFlavor.
> > > While this method is tested in the TCK on the basis of the
> > > reference
> > > implementation neither the spec itself nor the javadoc are really
> > > clear
> > > about the "right" return value. At the moment, we adjusted it to
> > > pass
> > > the TCK test in question.
> > >
> > > There is an ongoing discussion at dev@geronimo if this is a desired
> > > behaviour or if a system property should be introduced in order to
> > > reduce the possibility of breaking some users.
> > >
> > > (B) Geronimo Mail 2.0 / 2.1
> > >
> > > The current mail impl has some TCK failures. It seems, that we need
> > > to
> > > do some additional work to get it compliant with the standalone
> > > mail
> > > tck [3].
> > >
> > > The signature tests are failing for Java 11 but are fine with Java
> > > 8
> > > [4] due to some usage of Object#finalize() and missing annotations
> > > (only available in Java 9+) in the Geronimo implementation. While
> > > it
> > > is
> > > not that important for EE9, we need to keep it in mind for EE10.
> > >
> > > We currently pass 166 out of 321 mail tck tests [5]. I guess, we
> > > need
> > > to give it some more love to get the numbers up and finally get it
> > > to
> > > pass the mail tck. The good thing is, that we already pass the
> > > javamail
> > > tests for TomEE [6].
> > >
> > > Gruß
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/
> > > [2]
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/h8twm4rmdxt67fx227nyywjp96b6cky1
> > > [3] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/mail/2.0/
> > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834
> > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835
> > > [6]
> > >
> https://tck.work/tomee/tests?build=1651841331620&path=com.sun.ts.tests.javamail
> > >
> > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 15:44 +0200 schrieb Jean-Louis
> > > Monteiro:
> > > > Alright, time for a new update.
> > > >
> > > > TomEE 8.x with JDK8 and EE8 is equivalent to TomEE 9.x with
> > > > JDK11/JDK17 and
> > > > EE9.
> > > > The build is still not full green, but it's time to start
> > > > grabbing
> > > > user
> > > > feedback as we discussed.
> > > >
> > > > So the work started to take every single piece we fixed or
> > > > patched
> > > > to
> > > > start
> > > > doing releases and if possible run TCK + signature Tests.
> > > >
> > > > David did activation and mail milestones. Richard used the
> > > > milestone
> > > > to fix
> > > > and we are now under vote for activation 2.0 final and Richard is
> > > > making
> > > > some awesomeness on the mail spec and impl. We should be able to
> > > > get
> > > > final
> > > > versions soon.
> > > >
> > > > We also have an OWB vote starting today for a jakarta compatible
> > > > version
> > > > (including TCK).
> > > > Next step is to release a milestone for jakartaee-api 9.1-M2 and
> > > > move
> > > > on.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:29 AM Wiesner, Martin <
> > > > martin.wiesner@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > > Martin
> > > > > —
> > > > > https://twitter.com/mawiesne
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 11.05.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Cesar Hernandez <
> > > > > cesarguate@gmail.com
> > > > > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1, Thank you!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El mié, 11 may 2022 a las 9:06, Daniel Dias Dos Santos (<
> > > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com<mailto:
> > > > > daniel.dias.analistati@gmail.com>>)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 12:00 Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am fine with it: +1
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > Von: Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<mailto:
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2022 15:57:54
> > > > > An: dev@tomee.apache.org<ma...@tomee.apache.org>
> > > > > Betreff: Re: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace
> > > > >
> > > > > Alright, with the latest changes pushed yesterday and today, we
> > > > > are
> > > > > now
> > > > > at
> > > > > the exact same numbers for TomEE 8.x / Jakarta EE 8 under JDK8
> > > > > and
> > > > > TomEE
> > > > > 9.x / Jakarta 9.1 under JDK17.
> > > > >
> > > > > If everyone is ok with it, we can create a new milestone and
> > > > > give
> > > > > users
> > > > > the
> > > > > opportunity to provide us with some feedback and to report
> > > > > bugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM David Blevins <
> > > > > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Was checking out the TCK numbers this morning can make to
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > a
> > > > > 9.0.0-M8 while things look good and found this amazing email.
> > > > >
> > > > > The 9.0.x branch is looking absolutely amazing!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > What do we think about pushing out a 9.0.0-M8 while things are
> > > > > in
> > > > > their
> > > > > peak-stable state?  I'm sure we'll have to rip up a few more
> > > > > things
> > > > > to
> > > > > finish off the remaining Jakarta EE and MP TCK issues.  Would
> > > > > be
> > > > > great
> > > > > to
> > > > > have something that isn't M7 to fallback on as a reference
> > > > > point
> > > > > to
> > > > > track
> > > > > regressions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 10, 2022, at 3:56 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Time for some reporting....
> > > > >
> > > > > On our journey to migrate TomEE over from javax to jakarta
> > > > > namespace,
> > > > > we
> > > > > had many issues.
> > > > > After updating all our code, we had to do a bunch of dependency
> > > > > upgrades
> > > > > after upgrading many of them (OpenWebbeans, BVal, Geronimo,
> > > > > etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > We then faced many issues with non compatible libraries for
> > > > > example
> > > > > (ActiveMQ, commons-dbcp, CXF, sxc, taglib, etc). So we ended up
> > > > > repacking
> > > > > them in our own groupId after using the Maven Shade plugin to
> > > > > relocate
> > > > > the
> > > > > packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > We worked on BVal TCK and CDI TCK and we are close to passing
> > > > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we had before to solve all our outdated MicroProfile 1.3
> > > > > stack
> > > > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > most recent and jakarta compatible version. Geronimo
> > > > > implementations
> > > > > being
> > > > > far being, we decided to use some SmallRye implementations
> > > > > until
> > > > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > dedicate some time to update our Apache implementations
> > > > > (config,
> > > > > metrics,
> > > > > health, openapi, opentracing, fault tolerance).
> > > > >
> > > > > Our build is now more stable, but still not green. Some issues
> > > > > are
> > > > > basically easy to fix and most people could do it (examples for
> > > > > instance).
> > > > >
> > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-full/
> > > > >
> > > > > The integration for openapi, opentracing and fault tolerance is
> > > > > not
> > > > > done
> > > > > and we are far from passing the TCK. On config, metrics and
> > > > > health
> > > > > we
> > > > > are
> > > > > close. Same for our JWT implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also wanted to have a view on the platform TCK, so I decided
> > > > > to
> > > > > stop
> > > > > TomEE work in order to spend time on the Platform TCK to do all
> > > > > dependency
> > > > > upgrades and get the TCK to run properly. I'm pleased to
> > > > > announce
> > > > > that
> > > > > after 2 weeks of hard work, we are 99% compatible
> > > > >
> > > > > https://tck.work/tomee/build?id=1652104572445
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks everyone for the help.
> > > > > Keep going and if you need some guidance or help, let us know.
> > > > >
> > > > > For coordination purposes, here is the issue
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3862
> > > > > Many subtasks are there and you can create new tasks when
> > > > > needed
> > > > > and
> > > > > ask
> > > > > any committer to assign it to you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes - we already yanked it in 9.x
> > > > >
> > > > > Gruß
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 05.05.2022 um 10:10 +0100 schrieb Jonathan
> > > > > Gallimore:
> > > > > Sounds good. I'll drop the transformer from the 8.x branch
> > > > > (looks
> > > > > like we
> > > > > don't use it in 9.x), and I'll create a single example to
> > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > it in
> > > > > a sandbox.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 12:32 PM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto:
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right - we can remove it imho from 8.x as we do not
> > > > > test
> > > > > with
> > > > > it and the transformed samples might not even work, e.g.
> > > > > dependencies
> > > > > are not migrated, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for providing a (bigger) example.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gruß
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 04.05.2022 um 11:17 +0100 schrieb Jonathan
> > > > > Gallimore:
> > > > > I've picked up a task related to the examples:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3873. I
> > > > > specifically
> > > > > went
> > > > > for
> > > > > this, as I added the Eclipse Transformer to the build for a
> > > > > number of
> > > > > examples in the past, back when we were doing the
> > > > > transformation
> > > > > process on
> > > > > TomEE itself. The drawbacks here is that any tests in the
> > > > > examples
> > > > > run on
> > > > > the javax code, and we just "assume" that the transformed
> > > > > artifact
> > > > > works. I
> > > > > would suggest removing that for the master build, as it just
> > > > > takes
> > > > > build
> > > > > time, and the examples should be transformed from javax to
> > > > > jakarta at
> > > > > source (if they aren't already). On the TomEE 8 build, we could
> > > > > select a
> > > > > few examples (no need to do them all) and find a way to run the
> > > > > tests
> > > > > on
> > > > > both javax and jakarta versions of TomEE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, it would likely be useful to add documentation to
> > > > > this.
> > > > > If we
> > > > > also wanted a bigger example application that specifically
> > > > > covers
> > > > > transformation, I could look at that too.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com<ma...@tomitribe.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been working for quite a long time on TomEE 9.x, and it's
> > > > > been
> > > > > more
> > > > > challenging and painful than I was expecting. I thought it
> > > > > would be
> > > > > good to
> > > > > give you some sort of status.
> > > > >
> > > > > I created a PR for the work. As a reminder, since Java EE moved
> > > > > to
> > > > > Eclipse
> > > > > to become Jakarta EE, we had a switch from javax.* namespace to
> > > > > jakarta.*
> > > > > namespace. This is an impacting change, since all applications
> > > > > and
> > > > > applications servers are built on top of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > In TomEE, we decided to do that change in TomEE. We had
> > > > > previously
> > > > > a
> > > > > bytecode change approach like an application could do. It
> > > > > worked
> > > > > and we
> > > > > were able to get certified. But it had a lot of limitations, so
> > > > > we
> > > > > had to
> > > > > do the migration in the code and fix all compatibility issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the PR https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/814
> > > > > It has 90+ commits and nearly 5000 files touched (added,
> > > > > removed,
> > > > > updated).
> > > > > I understand it's a lot and it makes it almost impossible to
> > > > > review. But I
> > > > > did not see much approaches in this scenario to create smaller
> > > > > PRs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I created a Jenkins build though available at
> > > > >
> > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-quick-9.x/
> > > > >
> > > > > It makes it possible to track the progress. There have been
> > > > > steps
> > > > > forward
> > > > > and steps backward.
> > > > >
> > > > > All the code does not sit under TomEE, we use a bunch of third
> > > > > party
> > > > > projects and libraries. I have been able to contribute, publish
> > > > > jakarta
> > > > > compatible versions and get releases for some of them (Jakarta
> > > > > EE
> > > > > APIs Uber
> > > > > jar, Geronimo Connectors and Transaction Manager, Geronimo
> > > > > Config,
> > > > > Health,
> > > > > Metrics, OpenTracing, OpenAPI. OpenJPA, BVal, and OpenWebBeans
> > > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > released soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > The big parts is CXF, and ActiveMQ. I had to get them done in
> > > > > TomEE
> > > > > and
> > > > > update all group/artifact ids. It's under deps, alongside with
> > > > > SXC,
> > > > > DBCP,
> > > > > and others.
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of removal, I tried to remove old stuff like SAAJ Axis
> > > > > 1
> > > > > integration, JAX RPC, Management J2EE and a couple of other old
> > > > > things.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of other libraries got updated to their latest version
> > > > > when
> > > > > available
> > > > > in the new jakarta namespace.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm starting to get all the build stable and many modules are
> > > > > passing now,
> > > > > including all CXF webservices, OpenEJB Core, and others. I can
> > > > > get
> > > > > a build
> > > > > and run TomEE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Goal is to get a green build asap so we can start working on
> > > > > TCK.
> > > > > The "quick" build is now green. Working on the full build.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll soon be creating a branch for TomEE 8.x maintenance and
> > > > > merge
> > > > > the PR.
> > > > > I'm hoping we can then have small PRs or at least more people
> > > > > working in
> > > > > parallel.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Atentamente:
> > > > > César Hernández.
> > > > >
> > > > >
>