geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Assemblies assemblies everywhere and which one to ship?
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:48:41 GMT
Matt,

I don't think there is any requirement of exact combination of
components for TCK compliance. AFAIK, we need to ship the exact code
we tested, that's it. FWIW, it's self-certification as well :) So i am
happy if all the components are put thru the grinder at least once.

thanks,
-- dims

On 1/11/07, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Geir,
>
> What are the specifics around claiming certification?  My
> understanding is that to claim an assembly as certified that specific
> configuration is tested and made available.  Apart from that we can
> ship any permutation but cannot claim those as certified.  So if we
> TCK tested:
>
> Tomcat Axis OpenJPA and
> Jetty CXF Cayenne
>
> then
>
> Tomcat CXF OpenJPA would not be considered a certified release.   It
> would most likely work but we couldn't claim that specific assembly
> as certified.
>
> Is that correct?
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:53 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> >
> >> How hard is it to switch between the different assemblies once the
> >> TCK
> >> testing environment is setup? If it is easy enough, maybe we should
> >> first test all 8 assemblies and then concentrate on only those that
> >> pass the most tests.
> >
> > I guess I have the opposite point of view :-).  I suspect if we get
> > all the tests passing for each component in one configuration, they
> > will pretty much pass in all the other configurations, e.g. if cxf
> > + jetty + openjpa works then cxf + tomcat + cayenne will work too,
> > so the main chore will be to verify this.  If it's simple enough to
> > run the tck this won't be impossibly difficult to test all the
> > combinations, just take a bunch of machine time.
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >>
> >> Jarek
> >>
> >> On 1/9/07, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I think testing say (Tomcat+Axis2+OpenJPA) and (Jetty+CXF
> >>> +Cayenne) is
> >>> enough. All components should be tested at least once. If we get
> >>> time,
> >>> we could do more :)
> >>>
> >>> -- dims
> >>>
> >>> On 1/8/07, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Jan 7, 2007, at 9:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > On Jan 7, 2007, at 11:33 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> I was thinking about M2 this weekend and was considering
> >>> many of
> >>> > >> the challenges we face in putting out certified releases.
> >>> Up till
> >>> > >> now the number of permutations has been pretty limited and
that
> >>> > >> has been Jetty and Tomcat.  With Java EE 5.0 life is no longer
> >>> > >> that simple.  Here are the choices I know of today:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Web Container (Tomcat / Jetty)
> >>> > >> WebServices (Axis 2 / CXF)
> >>> > >> EJB 3.0 Persistence (OpenJPA / Cayenne)
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I think this makes 6 different assemblies and of course 6
> >>> separate
> >>> > >> certification efforts.  Perhaps we can do this and perhaps
we
> >>> > >> can't.  Based on where projects are at and their desire to
> >>> > >> participate in helping to integrate (and do TCK testing :).
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ummm 2 * 2 * 2 == 8
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I could be very wrong but I thought that the cmp 2.1 support in
> >>> > > openejb3 was relying on openjpa-specific features.  If so I
> >>> wonder
> >>> > > if it will be tricky to run the tck on other jpa
> >>> implementations.
> >>> >
> >>> > Well, we depend on being able to listen to events on the EM which
> >>> > there is no spec interface for.  I'm sure Cayanne has and
> >>> interface
> >>> > that can provide us with the events, and when they send us the
> >>> info
> >>> > we can add a hook for their Impl.
> >>> >
> >>> > In general, I think we should just pick a single JPA
> >>> implementation
> >>> > to ship with G because it is very easy for an application to
> >>> request
> >>> > a different implementation using specification defined properties.
> >>> >
> >>> > Of course that will leave us with 4 javaee assemblies and 2
> >>> minimal
> >>> > assemblies.
> >>> >
> >>> > -dain
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service
> >>> Developers)
> >>>
> >
> >
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)

Mime
View raw message