Skip to main content

Jakarta EE Platform Project

Home for the Jakarta EE Platform Team

Jakarta EE Platform Call

Date: 2021-06-15

Present:

  • BJ Hargrave (IBM)
  • Brian Stansberry (Red Hat)
  • Emily Jiang (IBM)
  • Ivar Grimstad (Eclipse Foundation)
  • Andy McCright (IBM)
  • Dmitry Kornilov (Oracle)
  • Scott Marlow (Red Hat)
  • Jan Westerkamp (iJUG)
  • Werner Keil (Committer, Jakarta EE Ambassador)
  • Jesse McConnell (Webtide)
  • Ed Bratt (Oracle)
  • Lukas Jungmann (Oracle)
  • Tanja Obradovic (Eclipse Foundation)
  • Cesar Hernandez (Tomitribe)
  • Jean-Louis Monteiro (Tomitribe)
  • Majid Mostafavi

Agenda and Minutes

TCKs (queued from last week’s call)

  • https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yDXTUUULUrFrUi1DV_9OcBKIiZLVxrZkA38MMvYdP-U/edit#
  • Core Profile TCKs
  • Web Profile TCKs

  • Full Platform TCKs

  • Discussion:
    • CDI marks tests with assertions that indicate the specification
      • Main issue is just maintainability to make it easier for new people to work on tcks.
      • Bean validation does the same with TestNG
      • For MVC (using JUnit), we are also using AssertionIDs copying the way it was done in Bean validation
      • Do other specs specify profile
        • We have had optional tests using test frame nomenclature
        • We want to get away from optional tests
    • Should we use TestNG only or JUnit5 only?
      • No, we should support both.
      • Test suites need to composable from both JUnit5 and/or TestNG
        • The composable criteria is key
      • Test suites need to be runnable via maven
      • Have a platform (surefire) TCK runner
        • Have the profiles configurations that you want to be able to run
        • Arquillian doesn’t care which test framework is used (both are supported).
      • Having a recommended tool to use would be good.
      • CDI TCK using Testng
        • Works well with choosing different profiles
        • We should get input from BV + CDI teams on this.
    • Should Arquillian (container integration) be required by all TCKs?
      • No, not all Specs need a container
    • Platform TCK users should be able to
      • Use their existing Porting TCK api implementation?
        • Cesar: Need to keep the current Platform TCK tooling working for users.
          • Platform TCK should could consume servlet TCK tests via maven artifact that can be run from maven
          • How can Platform TCK consume that servlet artifact
            • We can have the artifacts downloaded and available locally.
            • Or download artifacts from the Maven repository.
      • Keep using their existing Ant scripts which are currently deeply used in EE 9.1 Platform TCK?
        • Can users move over to Maven instead of ant?
          • Users will likely need to switch to maven unless ant script support is kept (ant is likely to be dropped).
          • Switching to Maven could mean it takes longer for some users to migrate to EE 10.
            • Hopefully the amount of time for users to migrate to maven will be a fixed amount of time.
    • We could create a new Maven based Platform TCK.
      • Or start new Maven projects in the existing Platform TCK.
    • It would be nice to establish the EE implementations being tested with AQAvit (Test Framework) within EF Adoptium (former AdoptOpenJDK project)
      • Testing with Tomcat (done)
      • Testing with new Java SE versions

Java SE level

  • Ballot runs until June 21
    • https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-platform-dev/msg02650.html
  • Results to be discussed next call (June 22)
  • Please vote if you haven’t done so yet!

Versioning Scheme

  • Proposals
    • https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZQGEYSCN5eYtDjWOXAQqNin7iwLKHnQFEP73FDoQdbw/edit?ts=60b68f2e#
  • Survey V2
    • https://survey.sogosurvey.com/r/bfeaPr
  • Please vote if you haven’t done so yet!

JPMS

  • Discussion Thread
    • https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-platform-dev/msg02632.html

Back to the top