Thanks for the detailed status Richard. For 1/ I sent my opinion. The vote is outgoing and I'd keep the fix you did for now without any "cheap" system properties. I'm not a big big fan and it's a major release. So I'd go lazy instead of eager on this one and see if really it's harmful or not.
For 2/ I can help you tomorrow if you want/need. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 7:14 PM Zowalla, Richard < [email protected]> wrote: > To give a more detailed view / update from the spec tck party regarding > activation and mail: > > (A) Geronimo Activation 2.0 > > After a first milestone (M1) and some additional fixes after running > the activation TCK [1] and related signatures tests, we are now passing > them. > > JL prepared a release artifact (1.0.0), which is currently under vote. > > During the tck work, we found some inconsistency / unspecified > behaviour of "normalizeMimeTypeParameter" of ActivationDataFlavor. > While this method is tested in the TCK on the basis of the reference > implementation neither the spec itself nor the javadoc are really clear > about the "right" return value. At the moment, we adjusted it to pass > the TCK test in question. > > There is an ongoing discussion at dev@geronimo if this is a desired > behaviour or if a system property should be introduced in order to > reduce the possibility of breaking some users. > > (B) Geronimo Mail 2.0 / 2.1 > > The current mail impl has some TCK failures. It seems, that we need to > do some additional work to get it compliant with the standalone mail > tck [3]. > > The signature tests are failing for Java 11 but are fine with Java 8 > [4] due to some usage of Object#finalize() and missing annotations > (only available in Java 9+) in the Geronimo implementation. While it is > not that important for EE9, we need to keep it in mind for EE10. > > We currently pass 166 out of 321 mail tck tests [5]. I guess, we need > to give it some more love to get the numbers up and finally get it to > pass the mail tck. The good thing is, that we already pass the javamail > tests for TomEE [6]. > > Gruß > Richard > > > > [1] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/ > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/h8twm4rmdxt67fx227nyywjp96b6cky1 > [3] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/mail/2.0/ > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834 > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 > [6] > > https://tck.work/tomee/tests?build=1651841331620&path=com.sun.ts.tests.javamail > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 15:44 +0200 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro: > > Alright, time for a new update. > > > > TomEE 8.x with JDK8 and EE8 is equivalent to TomEE 9.x with > > JDK11/JDK17 and > > EE9. > > The build is still not full green, but it's time to start grabbing > > user > > feedback as we discussed. > > > > So the work started to take every single piece we fixed or patched to > > start > > doing releases and if possible run TCK + signature Tests. > > > > David did activation and mail milestones. Richard used the milestone > > to fix > > and we are now under vote for activation 2.0 final and Richard is > > making > > some awesomeness on the mail spec and impl. We should be able to get > > final > > versions soon. > > > > We also have an OWB vote starting today for a jakarta compatible > > version > > (including TCK). > > Next step is to release a milestone for jakartaee-api 9.1-M2 and move > > on. > > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:29 AM Wiesner, Martin < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Best > > > Martin > > > — > > > https://twitter.com/mawiesne > > > > > > > > > Am 11.05.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Cesar Hernandez < > > > [email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > > > > +1, Thank you! > > > > > > > > > El mié, 11 may 2022 a las 9:06, Daniel Dias Dos Santos (< > > > [email protected]<mailto: > > > [email protected]>>) > > > escribió: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 12:00 Zowalla, Richard < > > > [email protected]<mailto: > > > [email protected]>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > I am fine with it: +1 > > > ________________________________ > > > Von: Jean-Louis Monteiro <[email protected]<mailto: > > > [email protected]>> > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2022 15:57:54 > > > An: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > Betreff: Re: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace > > > > > > Alright, with the latest changes pushed yesterday and today, we are > > > now > > > at > > > the exact same numbers for TomEE 8.x / Jakarta EE 8 under JDK8 and > > > TomEE > > > 9.x / Jakarta 9.1 under JDK17. > > > > > > If everyone is ok with it, we can create a new milestone and give > > > users > > > the > > > opportunity to provide us with some feedback and to report bugs. > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM David Blevins < > > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Was checking out the TCK numbers this morning can make to suggest a > > > 9.0.0-M8 while things look good and found this amazing email. > > > > > > The 9.0.x branch is looking absolutely amazing!!! > > > > > > What do we think about pushing out a 9.0.0-M8 while things are in > > > their > > > peak-stable state? I'm sure we'll have to rip up a few more things > > > to > > > finish off the remaining Jakarta EE and MP TCK issues. Would be > > > great > > > to > > > have something that isn't M7 to fallback on as a reference point to > > > track > > > regressions. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 2022, at 3:56 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Time for some reporting.... > > > > > > On our journey to migrate TomEE over from javax to jakarta > > > namespace, > > > we > > > had many issues. > > > After updating all our code, we had to do a bunch of dependency > > > upgrades > > > after upgrading many of them (OpenWebbeans, BVal, Geronimo, etc). > > > > > > We then faced many issues with non compatible libraries for example > > > (ActiveMQ, commons-dbcp, CXF, sxc, taglib, etc). So we ended up > > > repacking > > > them in our own groupId after using the Maven Shade plugin to > > > relocate > > > the > > > packages. > > > > > > We worked on BVal TCK and CDI TCK and we are close to passing them. > > > > > > But we had before to solve all our outdated MicroProfile 1.3 stack > > > to > > > the > > > most recent and jakarta compatible version. Geronimo > > > implementations > > > being > > > far being, we decided to use some SmallRye implementations until we > > > can > > > dedicate some time to update our Apache implementations (config, > > > metrics, > > > health, openapi, opentracing, fault tolerance). > > > > > > Our build is now more stable, but still not green. Some issues are > > > basically easy to fix and most people could do it (examples for > > > instance). > > > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-full/ > > > > > > The integration for openapi, opentracing and fault tolerance is not > > > done > > > and we are far from passing the TCK. On config, metrics and health > > > we > > > are > > > close. Same for our JWT implementation. > > > > > > I also wanted to have a view on the platform TCK, so I decided to > > > stop > > > TomEE work in order to spend time on the Platform TCK to do all > > > dependency > > > upgrades and get the TCK to run properly. I'm pleased to announce > > > that > > > after 2 weeks of hard work, we are 99% compatible > > > > > > https://tck.work/tomee/build?id=1652104572445 > > > > > > Thanks everyone for the help. > > > Keep going and if you need some guidance or help, let us know. > > > > > > For coordination purposes, here is the issue > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3862 > > > Many subtasks are there and you can create new tasks when needed > > > and > > > ask > > > any committer to assign it to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zowalla, Richard < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes - we already yanked it in 9.x > > > > > > Gruß > > > Richard > > > > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 05.05.2022 um 10:10 +0100 schrieb Jonathan > > > Gallimore: > > > Sounds good. I'll drop the transformer from the 8.x branch (looks > > > like we > > > don't use it in 9.x), and I'll create a single example to > > > demonstrate > > > it in > > > a sandbox. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 12:32 PM Zowalla, Richard < > > > [email protected]<mailto: > > > [email protected]>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > You are right - we can remove it imho from 8.x as we do not test > > > with > > > it and the transformed samples might not even work, e.g. > > > dependencies > > > are not migrated, etc. > > > > > > +1 for providing a (bigger) example. > > > > > > Gruß > > > Richard > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 04.05.2022 um 11:17 +0100 schrieb Jonathan > > > Gallimore: > > > I've picked up a task related to the examples: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3873. I specifically > > > went > > > for > > > this, as I added the Eclipse Transformer to the build for a > > > number of > > > examples in the past, back when we were doing the transformation > > > process on > > > TomEE itself. The drawbacks here is that any tests in the > > > examples > > > run on > > > the javax code, and we just "assume" that the transformed > > > artifact > > > works. I > > > would suggest removing that for the master build, as it just > > > takes > > > build > > > time, and the examples should be transformed from javax to > > > jakarta at > > > source (if they aren't already). On the TomEE 8 build, we could > > > select a > > > few examples (no need to do them all) and find a way to run the > > > tests > > > on > > > both javax and jakarta versions of TomEE. > > > > > > Additionally, it would likely be useful to add documentation to > > > this. > > > If we > > > also wanted a bigger example application that specifically covers > > > transformation, I could look at that too. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've been working for quite a long time on TomEE 9.x, and it's > > > been > > > more > > > challenging and painful than I was expecting. I thought it > > > would be > > > good to > > > give you some sort of status. > > > > > > I created a PR for the work. As a reminder, since Java EE moved > > > to > > > Eclipse > > > to become Jakarta EE, we had a switch from javax.* namespace to > > > jakarta.* > > > namespace. This is an impacting change, since all applications > > > and > > > applications servers are built on top of it. > > > > > > In TomEE, we decided to do that change in TomEE. We had > > > previously > > > a > > > bytecode change approach like an application could do. It > > > worked > > > and we > > > were able to get certified. But it had a lot of limitations, so > > > we > > > had to > > > do the migration in the code and fix all compatibility issues. > > > > > > Here is the PR https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/814 > > > It has 90+ commits and nearly 5000 files touched (added, > > > removed, > > > updated). > > > I understand it's a lot and it makes it almost impossible to > > > review. But I > > > did not see much approaches in this scenario to create smaller > > > PRs. > > > > > > I created a Jenkins build though available at > > > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-quick-9.x/ > > > > > > It makes it possible to track the progress. There have been > > > steps > > > forward > > > and steps backward. > > > > > > All the code does not sit under TomEE, we use a bunch of third > > > party > > > projects and libraries. I have been able to contribute, publish > > > jakarta > > > compatible versions and get releases for some of them (Jakarta > > > EE > > > APIs Uber > > > jar, Geronimo Connectors and Transaction Manager, Geronimo > > > Config, > > > Health, > > > Metrics, OpenTracing, OpenAPI. OpenJPA, BVal, and OpenWebBeans > > > will > > > be > > > released soon. > > > > > > The big parts is CXF, and ActiveMQ. I had to get them done in > > > TomEE > > > and > > > update all group/artifact ids. It's under deps, alongside with > > > SXC, > > > DBCP, > > > and others. > > > > > > In terms of removal, I tried to remove old stuff like SAAJ Axis > > > 1 > > > integration, JAX RPC, Management J2EE and a couple of other old > > > things. > > > > > > A lot of other libraries got updated to their latest version > > > when > > > available > > > in the new jakarta namespace. > > > > > > I'm starting to get all the build stable and many modules are > > > passing now, > > > including all CXF webservices, OpenEJB Core, and others. I can > > > get > > > a build > > > and run TomEE. > > > > > > Goal is to get a green build asap so we can start working on > > > TCK. > > > The "quick" build is now green. Working on the full build. > > > > > > I'll soon be creating a branch for TomEE 8.x maintenance and > > > merge > > > the PR. > > > I'm hoping we can then have small PRs or at least more people > > > working in > > > parallel. > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Atentamente: > > > César Hernández. > > > > > > >
