here is my own +1 (binding) Le mer. 25 mai 2022 à 02:12, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I always find it better when we can keep backward compatibility for users. > But this is a major version and I'm not a big fan of cheap system > properties. > > If we think it's not good, we should create a challenge to get it fixed in > the spec + TCK. > Otherwise, I would keep it the way it is. If it breaks users and we want > to help them out, it's still time to add the system property or a better > configuration option and do a maintenance release. > > I'd go lazy instead of eager considering it's a major version. > Meanwhile, I'd create an issue on the TCK + Spec > > > Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 13:21, Zowalla, Richard < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> Romain mentioned the idea (via Slack) of introducing a (cheap) system >> property, which a user can specifiy to get back the old behaviour. >> >> If we want to follow the compatibility appraoch, we should add that >> flag as the spec / RI is really unclear. >> >> >> Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 13:01 +0200 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau: >> > I conclude the same thing thanks your pointers so back to the >> > question: do we want to maintain the compat for our user base, do we >> > want to align on the random spec behavior or do we don't care? >> > Indeed I'm always in first team, in particular there since it will be >> > deprecated so the least we touch the best it is but guess it is a 50- >> > 50 case in terms of actual points :s. >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > >> > >> > Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 12:57, Zowalla, Richard < >> > [email protected]> a écrit : >> > > The test in question is >> > > >> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaf-tck/blob/2.0.1/tests/api/javasoft/sqe/tests/jakarta/activation/ActivationDataFlavor/normalizeMimeTypeParameter_Test.java >> > > >> > > which expects the plain parameter value instead of >> > > "parameter=value" as >> > > a return value. >> > > >> > > The JavaDoc is also not quite clear about it: >> > > >> > > >> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/apidocs/jakarta.activation/jakarta/activation/activationdataflavor#normalizeMimeTypeParameter(java.lang.String,java.lang.String) >> > > >> > > with "This method is called for each parameter name/value pair and >> > > should return the normalized representation of the >> > > parameterValue.". >> > > >> > > The spec document itself >> > > >> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/jakarta-activation-spec-2.0.html >> > > doesn't mention anything about it. >> > > >> > > Guess it is a relict from java.awt.DataFlavour (also @Deprecated >> > > there) >> > > to keep compatibility after removing the references to it. >> > > >> > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 12:42 +0200 schrieb Romain Manni- >> > > Bucau: >> > > > Hmm, before that the question is "are the TCK spec compliant", a >> > > lot >> > > > have a reference in the spec we maybe missed, do you have some >> > > > pointers on them? If we were wrong let's fix it, if the TCK are >> > > wrong >> > > > then maybe ignore the TCK? >> > > > >> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 12:33, Zowalla, Richard < >> > > > [email protected]> a écrit : >> > > > > There is a TCK test regarding normalizeMimeTypeParameter which >> > > > > broke with the current impl of normalizeMimeTypeParameter >> > > > > >> > > > > Therefore, I adjusted it but agree that it is mit really >> > > specified. >> > > > > Question would be, if it is "ok" to fail specific tests of the >> > > TCK. >> > > > > >> > > > > Gruß >> > > > > Richard >> > > > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2022 11:53:37 >> > > > > An: [email protected] >> > > > > Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0 >> > > > > >> > > > > Not voting negatively but seems we >> > > > > broke normalizeMimeTypeParameter (I guess copying the RI?) and >> > > I'm >> > > > > not sure it should be done. >> > > > > From my understanding this part is not well specified and >> > > highly >> > > > > depends on the impl but I don't see a reson to break existing >> > > > > consumers which I always favor in regards of being aligned on >> > > the >> > > > > RI. >> > > > > >> > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 11:45, Jean-Louis Monteiro < >> > > > > [email protected]> a écrit : >> > > > > > Here we go >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We now pass all TCK and signature tests. Thanks Richard. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This is essentially the same as the M1 David did last week >> > > but >> > > > > > with the fixes for compliance (See GERONIMO-6832) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Here is the link for sources >> > > > > > >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/activation_2.0_spec/ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Here is the svn tag >> > > > > > >> > > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_2.0_spec-1.0.0/ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Here is the staging repo >> > > > > > >> > > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1155 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please vote to approve this release: >> > > > > > [ ] +1 Approve the release >> > > > > > [ ] 0 Abstain (please provide specific comments) >> > > > > > [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific >> > > > > > comments) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro >> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > Jean-Louis > -- Jean-Louis
