For reference: > The TCKs will be compiled at the Java SE 11 level. In order to allow for runtimes beyond Java SE 11, the TCK will also need to be (successfully) executed with Java SE 17.
> How a Compatible Implementation supports the Java SE 11 runtime (or above) will be left as a vendor-defined solution. > https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jakartaee-platform/jakartaee10/JakartaEE10ReleasePlanFAQ#why-require-java-se-17-for-tck-execution Which means only java 17 is a requirement of the specs even if java 11 is ok-ish. Have to admit this is a very weird writing and it looks like people disagreed so everything was put in the specs to make everyone happy so the spec does not cover the actual requirement. However since spec jars are java 11 I think it is ok to relax the compiler settings. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le jeu. 9 févr. 2023 à 18:56, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Both CDI 4.0 and the Jakarta EE Core/Webprofile/Platform specs all support > Java 11 or higher in the spec and on the spec page. > > - https://jakarta.ee/specifications/cdi/4.0/ > - https://jakarta.ee/specifications/coreprofile/10/ > > > -David > > > On Feb 8, 2023, at 10:48 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > > > Guess 17 is a prerequisite of the spec so no real choice afaik until we > > dont comply to the api. > > For j11/cdi3 our previous shades do the job. > > > > Tck filters+jira links are in the testng xml config if it helps. > > > > Romain > > > > Le jeu. 9 févr. 2023 à 02:17, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> a > > écrit : > > > >> > >> > >>> On Jan 30, 2023, at 5:40 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> > >> wrote: > >>> * Some challenged tests, some unspecified behaviour in some tests. E.g. > >> they assume a specified order class annotations before method > annotations > >> for Interceptors. But the spec *explicitly* says that for Interceptors > with > >> the same @Priority the order is unspecified. > >> > >> Do you have links to the challenges you filed and does it look like > >> they’ll be accepted? > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >
