geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jarek Gawor <>
Subject Re: JCDI and Bean Validation TCKs
Date Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:04:05 GMT
Ok, it sounds like more people prefer to move these tcks into a public
svn location.

So I guess we should create a repo and move the tcks
over. There should be no problem with moving the following modules
(since it's all Apache licensed stuff):

1) jboss-test-harness-geronimo - integration code between jboss test
harness & geronimo which is used by #2 and #3
2) jcdi-testsuite - jcdi tck runner
3) validator-testsuite - bean validation tck runner

But I also would like to move the following two modules:

4) jaxb-testsuite - jaxb tck runner
5) stax-testsuite - stax tck runner

#4 and #5 are basically just pom files that download the right
Geronimo dependencies and unix shell scripts that run the given tck in
batch mode. The actual tck must be downloaded/setup separately. They
do however contain a JavaTest configuration file that configures the
tck. So I'm not 100% sure if these modules can be moved because of
that config file.

Also, should these modules move to or to to mimic
the setup we have in geronimo-tck repo?

If there are no major objections to this plan I'll start working on it tomorrow.


On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Kevan Miller <> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:05 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>> My main concern is that if we move the JCDI and Bean Validation
>>> porting code to public svn location then we will effectively have two
>>> mailing lists for discussing tck issues, two jira places for filing
>>> and tracking tck challenges, possibly two wiki places for tck info,
>>> etc. And we will have to be extra careful to discuss a given tck
>>> problem on the right list... and sooner or later somebody will use the
>>> wrong list.
>>> Yes, it would be nice to have this stuff in open but I'm just
>>> wondering how much headache it will be to keep track of it all and
>>> maintain it.
>> I think its going to be significantly harder to maintain out in the open and there
is much more likelyhood of slips in talking about NDA stuff on public lists, but I don't think
we have any good argument for keeping the harnesses for these tcks in the private svn.  IMO
ideally all the tcks would be public so I feel a bit morally obligated to put anything that
can be public, in public.
> Good discussion. My preference would be to err on the side of openness. So, would prefer
to see the harnesses in public svn and documentation on public Wiki. I think we can maintain
any actual TCK challenges using TCK Jira and TCK mailing list (i.e. use the existing mechanisms
for ASF communications with Oracle). Would assume that most challenges would have been preceded
by a public discussion...
> If we mess up and accidentally reveal some private TCK information, then so be it. Accidents
have (and will) happen. In my experience, you can find a lot more TCK private information
on Sun/Oracle's bug reports then we've ever revealed. Not saying we should ignore the issue.
Just saying we shouldn't lose much sleep over it, either...
> -- kevan

View raw message