www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JSR200
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:19:01 GMT
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> On Mar 18, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
> 
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Sun has informed me that the TCK for JSR-200 is not available as a
>>> separate TCK, as it's part of the platform TCK for Java SE.
>>>
>>> We requested that it be separated, but in the opinion of Sun, it wasn't
>>> separable given it's integration w/ java.util.
> 
> Speaking out of turn here, 

Not at all, I didn't think we were taking turns.  Thanks for chipping in.

> but it would at least require expenditure of
> non-trivial engineering resources to split it out. It *might* be
> worthwhile for someone to volunteer to do the split and "propose a
> patch". Doing the work would possibly expose the reality of why it's
> bundled.

If you send me a JCK under favorable terms I'll try and provide the
patch ;-)

>> So to point out the obvious, it means nobody can produce an independent
>> implementation of this JSR and determine its compliance with the
>> specification.  That seems like quite a problem for a supposedly
>> individual JSR.
> 
> Clearly, this one slipped past everyone. From the official vote on the JSR:
> On 2002-12-09 Apache Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment.

Based on others' comments, it didn't really slip past, rather some JSRs
are not stand-alone by design.  I'll have to read the spec sheets more
carefully.

>> Is there any indication of which JSRs are separable and which can only
>> be tested in the context of the umbrella JSRs?  I'm guessing not, and
>> that we'd need to ask the question each time.
> 
> If you mean, "Do you have to read each JSR as it comes out to see what
> the planned TCK strategy for that JSR is?", the answer is yes. Section 2
> of every JSR that's filed contains the proposed TCK and RI strategy.
>>
>>
>> It is strange to me that the tests for just one class
>> (java.util.jar.Pack200) and two interfaces (Pack200.Packer and
>> Pack200.Unpacker) are so closely coupled with the other tests -- there
>> is no integration with the java.util other than by package naming
>> convention.
>>
>> Can we
> 
> I guess you mean "anyone in Apache who cares"

Well I mean Geir since he carries the EC vote, and EG members who help
shepherd the 'strategy' of the JSRs.

>> please try ensure that any JSR that is proposed for inclusion in
>> a Java 7 umbrella comes with its own TCK?
> 
> Good idea. See above and complain if the TCK is proposed to be bundled
> with the umbrella. This is a good topic to bring up when the JSR is
> originally filed. Apache as an official member of the Executive
> Committee has some weight...

Ack.

Regards,
Tim


Mime
View raw message