geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <>
Subject Re: Geronimo subprojects?
Date Mon, 30 May 2005 20:02:49 GMT
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On May 28, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>> I think I wrote something a little confusing...let me clarify...
>>> What we do to a subset of Geronimo has impact on the whether it  
>>> passes.  However if Geronimo passes the TCK, then a subset would  
>>> include the features that passed.
>> Technically speaking, you couldn't make that claim.
> Does the law of transitivity not apply here?  If Jetty passes the TCK, 
> would its use on its own in a Geronimo Lite (i.e. G + Jetty only) not 
> mean that we are using the passed component for web?
> My point was:
> Full G Change (where it passes) ---> G Lite contains passed code.
> but
> G Lite is changed -----> May impact full G's passing of TCK.
> Please clarify how this claim may not be valid.

I believe natural laws do not apply here given lawyers are involved :-)

Certification applies only to specific binary distributions, so if Jetty 
released a binary and certified it then they could claim compatibility 
for that version (and even then only on a specific set of platforms). 
Any other binary, including Geronimo, that incorporated Jetty would not 
be able to claim compatibility unless the combined work was tested. 
Similarly if Geronimo incorporates Jetty and certifies then it does not 
mean that Jetty standalone can claim compatibility.

What makes matters worse is that some specifications (for example EJB, 
J2CA) currently cannot be licensed separately from J2EE making it 
impossible to claim compatibility with them standalone.


View raw message